1 introduction - denix€¦ · natural resources (goodman, 1993). on 14 april 1994, dusd(es) issued...

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)

1 Introduction

This revised edition of the Primer providesinformation on the relative risk siteevaluation framework being used by theDepartment of Defense (DoD), in concertwith stakeholders, to help sequenceenvironmental restoration work at sites atactive military installations, BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC)installations, and formerly used defenseproperties. It describes the structure andlogic underpinning the framework andprovides detailed instructions for conductingrelative risk site evaluations in the field. Italso describes how removal and remedialactions should be factored into relative risksite evaluations.

This document is a product of theInterservice Relative Risk WorkingGroupcomprised of representatives fromthe Army, Navy, Air Force, and DefenseLogistics Agencythat was formed inMay 1994 to develop concepts andimplementation procedures for the relativerisk site evaluation framework.

This revised edition of the Primer replacesthe Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer(Interim Edition, Summer 1994) issued inSeptember 1994, in its entirety. It containsenhanced technical guidelines for performingrelative risk site evaluations which have beenadded in response to DoD initiatives as wellas questions and comments received fromDoD field elements, regulatory agencies, andstakeholders during the first twenty monthsof relative risk implementation.

The audience within DoD includes remedialproject managers and other environmentalpersonnel responsible for planning,executing, and evaluating environmentalrestoration activities at DoD installations andformerly used defense sites (FUDS). The

audience outside DoD includes federal andstate regulatory agencies, local governments,and public stakeholders living or working inthe vicinity of DoD installations and FUDS.

1.1 Definition of Relative Risk SiteEvaluation

The relative risk site evaluation frameworkis a methodology used by all DoDComponents to evaluate the relative riskposed by a site in relation to other sites. It isa tool used across all of DoD to group sitesinto high, medium, and low categories basedon an evaluation of site information usingthree factors: the contaminant hazard factor(CHF), the migration pathway factor (MPF),and the receptor factor (RF). Factors arebased on a quantitative evaluation ofComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants and a qualitative evaluation ofpathways and human and ecologicalreceptors in the four media most likely toresult in significant exposuregroundwater,surface water, sediment, and surface soils. Arepresentation of this evaluation concept ispresented in Figure 1. Figure 1 also depictspossible opportunities for stakeholder inputinto the technical evaluation.

The relative risk site evaluation framework isa qualitative and easy to understandmethodology for evaluating the relative risksposed by sites and should not be equated withmore formal risk assessments conducted toassess baseline risks posed by sites. It is a toolto assist in sequencing environmentalrestoration work (i.e., known requirementssuch as remedial investigation or cleanupactions) to be done by a DoD Component. It is

XX

X

XXX

Site

s

Con

tam

inan

tH

azar

d F

acto

r

Mig

ratio

nP

athw

ayF

acto

r

Rec

epto

r F

acto

r

HIG

H

ME

DIU

M

LO

W

Reg

ulat

or a

nd P

ublic

Sta

keho

lder

Invo

lvem

ent i

n

Tec

hnic

al E

valu

atio

n

Sit

es*

at

each

In

stal

lati

on

**

Dat

a A

ssem

bly

***

Eva

luat

ion

F

acto

rsR

elat

ive

Ris

k C

ateg

ori

es

Sou

rce

Pat

hway

s

Rec

epto

rs

Figu

re 1

. R

elat

ive

Ris

k Si

te E

valu

atio

n C

once

pt S

umm

ary

*S

ites

for

curr

ent D

oD in

stal

latio

ns

equ

ate

with

"P

roje

cts"

in th

e F

orm

erly

U

tiliz

ed D

efen

se S

ites

(FU

DS

)

Pro

gram

**I

nsta

llatio

ns e

quat

e w

ith "

prop

ertie

s"

in

the

FU

DS

Pro

gram

***D

ata

asse

mbl

ed b

y en

viro

nmen

tal

m

ediu

m


designed to handle the broad range of sitesthat exist at DoD installations and the broadrange of data available. Like any riskevaluation tool and perhaps more so than acomprehensive risk assessment, the relativerisk site evaluation framework makes use ofassumptions and approximations. Usersshould bear these limitations in mind whenapplying the framework. Relative risk is notthe sole factor in determining the sequence ofenvironmental restoration work, but it is animportant consideration in the priority settingprocess. It should be factored into all prioritysetting decisions, and should be discussedwith regulators and public stakeholders in theenvironmental restoration process, such asthose mentioned above. The grouping of sitesinto high, medium, or low relative riskcategories is not a substitute for either abaseline risk assessment or health assessment;it is not a means of placing sites into aResponse Complete/No Further Actioncategory; and it is not a tool for justifying aparticular type of action (e.g., the selection ofa remedy).

The relative risk site evaluation frameworkis used by all DoD Components to assesssite relative risks at installations andformerly used defense properties. Use of theframework and resulting relative riskinformation allows DoD and DoDComponents to communicate and helpestablish priorities for environmentalrestoration work.

The actual funding priority for a site isidentified after relative risk information iscombined with other important riskmanagement considerations (e.g., thestatutory and regulatory status of a particularinstallation or site, public stakeholderconcerns, program execution considerations,and economic factors). A list of commonrisk management considerations can befound in Appendix E, page 39. These

additional risk management considerationscan result in a decision to fund work at a sitethat is not classified as a high relative risk.DoD Components have each developedguidelines for combining relative risk andrisk management considerations as part oftheir planning, programming, and budgetingprocess. The planning, programming, andbudgeting process within DoD is outlined inAppendix E, page 16.

The relative risk site evaluation frameworkdoes not address the question of whetherwork is necessary at a site; it only providesinformation for use in helping to determinethe general sequence in which sites will beaddressed. At the DoD headquarters level, italso provides a framework for planning,programming, and budgeting requirements,a topic discussed further in Section 1.6.

Use of the relative risk site evaluationframework is restricted to environmentalrestoration sites and does not extend tounexploded ordnance (UXO) removal,building demolition/debris removal(BD/DR), potentially responsible party(PRP) activities, or compliance activities.

1.2 Rationale for Relative Risk SiteEvaluation

In a 1994 report, entitled EnvironmentalCleanup: Too Many High-Priority SitesImpede DoD’s Program, the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO, 3 May 1994)concluded that the method used at that timeby regulators and the DoD to determinewhich sites to work on first resulted in (1)too many similar priorities where too littlegot done, or (2) instances where DoD’sworst sites were not getting priorityattention. The report further stated that theapproach in 1994, which was based solelyon regulation-driven requirements, led tosignificant cost growth that strained limitedresources and forced difficult choices.


Prior to 1994 and the implementation of therelative risk site evaluation concept withinDoD, restoration priorities were establishedat the field level using a variety of methodsand factors. At many installations, workpriorities were established by DoD andregulatory agency personnel as part ofregulatory agreement negotiations. By theend of negotiations, work sequencing wasoften included in legal agreements in theform of study and cleanup milestones, usinginformation available at that time. Thedegree to which risk-based considerationswere incorporated into scheduling milestonedecisions varied considerably within DoD.

Typical legal agreements that containmilestones for sites include Federal FacilityAgreements under CERCLA, permits forcorrective action under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), asamended; two-party agreements underfederal or state law; and enforcement ordersunder CERCLA or RCRA, as amended.Because additional data continue to becomeavailable for many of the sites withestablished milestones, and in light of recentbudget shortfalls and funding recisions, DoDbelieves that a risk-based approach shouldcontinue to be applied to work sequencingusing relative risk as a key factor. Therelative risk site evaluation frameworkdescribed in this revised edition of thePrimer provides a means of helpingaccomplish this objective.

1.3 Development of the Relative Risk SiteEvaluation Framework

On 9 November 1993, the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (EnvironmentalSecurity) (DUSD[ES]) committed topursuing relative risk site evaluation in theDefense Environmental RestorationProgram (DERP) in consultation withregulators and communities in testimony

before the Senate Committee on Energy andNatural Resources (Goodman, 1993).

On 14 April 1994, DUSD(ES) issuedManagement Guidance for Execution of theFY94/95 and Development of the FY96Defense Environmental RestorationProgram (Office of the Under Secretary ofDefense [Environmental Security], 1994),which promotes the use of a risk manage-ment concept to evaluate the sequence ofwork at environmental restoration programsites in conjunction with the regulatoryagreement status of each site. It directs eachservice within DoD to begin developing itsenvironmental restoration program using arelative risk site evaluation framework.

In September 1994, DUSD(ES) issued theInterim Edition of the Primer, whichcontained instructions for performingrelative risk site evaluations at sites acrossDoD. In the fall of 1995, DUSD(ES)decided to revise the Primer, resulting in theissuance of this document.

1.4 Requirements for Relative Risk SiteEvaluations

Relative risk site evaluations are requiredfor all sites at active military installations,BRAC installations, and formerly useddefense properties that have future fundingrequirements that are not classified as (1)having “all remedies in place,”(2) ”response complete,” (3) lackingsufficient information, or (4) abandonedordnance. These four situations arediscussed in the following four paragraphs.

Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified as havingall remedies in place (RIP) even though theymay be in remedial action operation (RAO)or long-term monitoring (LTM). A RIPdetermination requires that remedial actionconstruction is complete for a site.


Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified as responsecomplete (RC). Sites classified as RC arethose where a DoD Component deems thatno further action (NFA) is required with thepossible exception of LTM. A RCdetermination requires that one of thefollowing apply: (1) there is no evidencethat contaminants were released at the site,(2) no contaminants were detected at the siteother than at background concentrations,(3) contaminants attributable to the site arebelow action levels used for risk screening,(4) the results of a baseline risk assessmentdemonstrate that cumulative risks posed bythe site are below established thresholds, or(5) removal and/or remedial actionoperations (RAOs) at a site have beenimplemented, completed, and are the finalaction for the site. Only LTM remains.

Relative risk site evaluations should bebased on the information currently availableon contaminants, migration pathways, andreceptors. Sites lacking sufficientinformation for the conduct of a relative risksite evaluation should be given a “NotEvaluated” designation and should then beprogrammed for additional study, a removalaction if warranted, or other appropriateresponse action, including deferral, beforethey are evaluated.

Sites comprised solely of abandonedordnance are not subject to the relative risksite evaluation described in this Primer.Such sites should be evaluated using aseparate risk procedure, which is discussedin the management guidance cited above(Office of the Under Secretary of Defense[Environmental Security], 1994).

1.5 Implementation of the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Framework

DoD’s goal is to conduct relative risk siteevaluations at the field level with the

involvement of the regulators and publicstakeholders (see Figure 1). The technicalevaluation of sites using the evaluationframework can serve as a basis fordiscussion and negotiation with regulatorsand public stakeholders. In particular,regulators and public stakeholders can helpidentify receptors, and can make judgmentsabout the extent of contaminant migration invarious environmental media at a site.Where they exist, Restoration AdvisoryBoards (RABs) are an excellent forum forobtaining public stakeholder input onthese aspects of site relative risk. Otheropportunities for public stakeholderinvolvement may also be appropriate.Regulators and public stakeholders shouldalways be given the opportunity toparticipate in the development and review ofrelative risk site evaluation data before thedata is used in planning and programming.

As lessons are learned during thisimplementation phase, DoD will continue tomake appropriate adjustments andimprovements to the framework through theestablished interservice working group, ashas been done in this revised Primer.

1.6 Management Uses of Relative RiskInformation

DoD and DoD Components are using therelative risk site evaluation framework as atool to help sequence work at sites and as aheadquarters program management tool. Asa program management tool, the frameworkis being used by DoD and DoD Componentsto periodically identify the distribution ofsites in each of three relative riskcategories—high, medium, and low. Aseries of discrete relative risk siteevaluations provides headquarters programmanagers with a macro-level view ofchanges in relative risk distributions withinDoD over time.


The relative risk site evaluation frameworkand resulting data also provide DoD with abasis for establishing goals and performancemeasures for the environmental restorationprogram. In this regard, DoD has establishedgoals for all DoD Components to reducerelative risk at sites in DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Account (DERA)and BRAC programs or to have remedialsystems in place where necessary for thesesites, within the context of legal agreements.DoD and DoD Components are trackingprogress towards these relative risk reductiongoals as one of several program measures ofmerit (MOMs) at the headquarters level.Another MOM tracks the number of siteswhere cleanup action has been taken andrelative risk has been reduced in one or moremedia. Resultant information is used toprovide the necessary feedback to developand adjust program requirements and budgetprojections, as well as to assess whetherestablished goals reflect fiscal reality.

1.7 Organization of This Primer

Section 2 provides a general and factor-by-factor description of the relative risk siteevaluation framework. Section 3 providesdetailed instructions for using theframework at the installation or field level todocument site evaluations.

Definitions of terms used to explain generalconcepts and specific elements of relativerisk site evaluations are found in Section 4.In addition, the Primer contains a referencesection (Section 5), a list of acronyms andabbreviations (Section 6), and fiveappendices.

Appendix A contains the revised RelativeRisk Site Evaluation Worksheet that is usedin determining relative risk for a site.

Appendix B contains Comparison Valuesderived from Preliminary RemediationGoals (PRGs) used by Region IX of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and from benchmarks used by otherorganizations for radionuclides and military-unique compounds (B-1); Ambient WaterQuality Criteria developed under Section304(a) of the Clean Water Act (B-2); andsediment screening values developed in partby the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) and by the OntarioMinistry of Environment and Energy (B-3).These comparison values are used indetermining the CHF for each applicablemedium, as described in later sections of thisPrimer.

Appendix C lists the types of regulatoryagreements used in DERA and BRACrestoration programs and their codes, as wellas site types and their codes.

Appendix D contains examples of relativerisk site evaluations using the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Worksheet. The examplesserve as a guide for performing actual site-by-site evaluations at the installation or fieldlevel.

Appendix E contains material that can beused for training or as a basis forpresentations to interested parties within andoutside of DoD. It contains two fact sheetsand an extensive briefing. The first factsheet summarizes the relative risk siteevaluation framework. The second providesanswers to common questions on thedevelopment and use of the relative risk siteevaluation framework. The briefing providesinformation on the origin of relative riskwithin DoD, the relative risk work group,the structure of the framework itself and itsuse. It also describes how relative risk isused as a program management tool withinDoD and provides technical slides thatillustrate detailed aspects of the framework.


2 Description of Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework

This section provides information on thestructure and logic underpinning the relativerisk site evaluation framework and providesdefinitions of each relative risk factor byenvironmental medium.

The relative risk site evaluation framework isbased on information fundamental to riskassessment: sources, pathways, andreceptors. These elements are building blocksof a conceptual site model, a tool used infield investigation and risk assessment toorganize site information.

Relative risks to human health for cancer andtoxicity, as well as to ecological systems, areaddressed in the relative risk site evaluationframework.

The framework uses recent/representativesite information to evaluate the followingfour media and their exposure endpoints:

• Groundwater (human endpoint)• Surface water

− Human endpoint− Ecological endpoint

• Sediments− Human endpoint− Ecological endpoint

• Surface soils, preferably from a depth of0-6 inches (human endpoint)

Air is not considered by the relative risk siteevaluation framework because the riskthrough this pathway from DoD sites withoutsoil contamination generally is minimal, andthe PRGs for contaminated soils considerinhalation of volatiles and contaminatedparticles (U.S. EPA, Region IX PreliminaryRemediation Goals, Second Half, 1 September1995). (The PRGs for water considerinhalation for water contaminated withvolatiles.)

Each environmental medium is evaluatedusing three factors that relate to the threestructural components of the conceptual sitemodel used in risk assessment: CHF(relationship of contaminants to comparisonvalues), MPF (likelihood/extent ofcontaminant migration), and RF (likelihood ofreceptor exposure to contamination). Each ofthese three factors is given a rating (e.g.,Significant, Moderate, or Minimal for CHF)based on recent/representative site informationfor a given medium. For each environmentalmedium, factor ratings are combined todetermine the environmental medium-specificrating of High, Medium, or Low. The site isthen placed in an overall category of High,Medium, or Low, based on the highestmedium-specific rating. This site-specificprocess is illustrated schematically inFigure 2. Figure 3 expands on Figure 2 andillustrates the decision framework for therelative risk site evaluations.

As shown in Figure 3, only sites with reliable(i.e., most recent/representative) contaminantdata will be evaluated using the framework.Do not perform evaluations on sites classifiedas RIP and RC, and do not performevaluations at sites comprised solely ofordnance. If data are available for only onemedium, a site can be evaluated for relativerisk. If data are absent, sites should bedesignated “Not Evaluated.” Action on thesesites may be deferred, or the sites may beprogrammed for additional study before theyare evaluated. In addition, a removal actionor other response action may be appropriate.

Figures 4 through 6 provide definitions ofeach factor for groundwater, surface waterand sediment, and surface soils, respectively.Factors and associated rating definitionsshould be used together with detailed

Figu

re 2

. Fl

ow D

iagr

am o

f th

e R

elat

ive

Ris

k Si

te E

valu

atio

n Fr

amew

ork

CH

F=

Con

tam

inan

t Haz

ard

Fac

tor

MP

F=

Mig

ratio

n P

athw

ay F

acto

r R

F=

Rec

epto

r F

acto

r

*Inc

lude

s hu

man

and

eco

logi

cal e

ndpo

ints

Gro

undw

ater

Sur

face

Wat

er

and

Sed

imen

t*

Soi

l

Sit

e In

form

atio

n

CH

FM

PF

RF

Cat

egor

y

CH

FM

PF

RF

Cat

egor

y

CH

FM

PF

RF

Cat

egor

y

ME

DIA

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N F

AC

TO

RS

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

ME

DIA

-SP

EC

IFIC

R

EL

AT

IVE R

ISK R

AT

ING

Ove

rall

Sit

e C

ateg

ory

--H

igh

, Med

ium

, or

Lo

w

SE

LE

CT H

IGH

ES

T

ME

DIA

RA

TIN

G

Figu

re 3

. R

elat

ive

Ris

k Si

te E

valu

atio

n Fr

amew

ork:

Dec

isio

n Fl

owch

art

Rec

epto

rF

acto

rC

onta

min

ant

Haz

ard

Fac

tor

MIg

ratio

n P

athw

ayF

acto

r

Con

tam

inan

t H

azar

d F

acto

r

Are

rel

iabl

e2

conc

entr

atio

nda

ta a

vaila

ble?

3

Y -

Per

form

rel

ativ

e ris

k ev

alua

tion

N

Doe

s ex

istin

g in

form

atio

nin

dica

te a

con

cern

(e

.g.,

rele

ase

has

occu

rred

, pa

thw

ays

are

likel

y, s

ensi

tive

rece

ptor

s ne

arby

)

YF

und

addi

tiona

l stu

dy

or ta

ke r

emov

al a

ctio

nif

war

rant

ed

Syn

thes

ize

avai

labl

e in

form

atio

n on

Site

1

Def

er S

ite

1 Site

- D

iscr

ete

area

for

whi

ch s

uspe

cted

con

tam

inat

ion

has

been

ver

ified

and

whi

ch r

equi

res

furt

her

resp

onse

act

ion.

Are

a ha

s be

en (

or w

ill b

e) e

nter

ed in

to R

MIS

/DS

ER

TS

. F

or th

e F

UD

S p

rogr

am, "

Pro

ject

s" e

quat

es to

site

s fo

r cu

rren

t ins

talla

tions

.2 R

elia

ble

mea

ns r

ecen

t yet

rep

rese

ntat

ive

of s

ite c

ondi

tions

.3 I

f sam

plin

g re

sults

for

each

and

eve

ry m

ediu

m s

ampl

ed a

re b

elow

det

ectio

n or

are

with

in e

stab

lishe

d ba

ckgr

ound

con

cent

ratio

n ra

nges

, the

site

is a

utom

atic

ally

cat

egor

ized

as

Low

. 4 M

edia

- C

ondu

ct r

elat

ive

risk

eval

uatio

ns b

y m

edia

: gr

ound

wat

er, s

urfa

ce w

ater

, sed

imen

t, so

il. I

f rel

iabl

e da

ta a

re n

ot a

vaila

ble

for

a m

ediu

m, t

hat m

ediu

m is

ass

igne

d a

ratin

g of

"N

ot E

valu

ated

" (N

E).

N

Sel

ect

Med

ia4

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

Mig

ratio

n P

athw

ay

Fac

tor

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

HIG

H

Mig

ratio

n P

athw

ay

Fac

tor

sign

ifica

nt

mod

erat

e

evid

ent

pote

ntia

l

conf

ined

evid

ent

pote

ntia

l

conf

ined

ME

D

HIG

H

HIG

H

LOW

ME

D

ME

D

ME

D

HIG

H

HIG

H

LOW

HIG

H

ME

D

Mig

ratio

n P

athw

ay

Fac

tor

min

imal

evid

ent

pote

ntia

l

conf

ined

HIG

H

ME

D

LOW

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

Rec

epto

rF

acto

rLO

W

HIG

H

ME

D

LOW

LOW

>10

0

2-10

0

<2

LOW

LOW

iden

tifie

d

limite

d

pote

ntia

l

ME

D

LOW

LOW

LOW

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

iden

tifie

d

pote

ntia

l

limite

d

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r

Med

ia

Rat

ing

Figu

re 4

. R

elat

ive

Ris

k Si

te E

valu

atio

n Fa

ctor

Inf

orm

atio

n fo

r G

roun

dwat

er

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] > 1

00

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] = 2

- 1

00

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] < 2

Sig

nific

ant

Min

imal

Co

nta

min

ant

Haz

ard

Fac

tor

(CH

F)*

Mod

erat

e

Ana

lytic

al d

ata

or o

bser

vabl

e ev

iden

ce in

dica

tes

that

con

tam

inat

ion

in th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

mov

ing

or h

as m

oved

aw

ay fr

om th

e so

urce

are

aE

vide

nt

Pot

entia

l

Con

fined

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s th

at th

e po

tent

ial f

or c

onta

min

ant m

igra

tion

from

the

sour

ce v

ia

the

grou

ndw

ater

is li

mite

d (d

ue to

geo

logi

cal s

truc

ture

s or

phy

sica

l con

trol

s)

Mig

rati

on

P

ath

way

F

acto

r (M

PF

)**

The

re is

a th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y w

ell d

owng

radi

ent o

f the

sou

rce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is a

cur

rent

sou

rce

of d

rinki

ng w

ater

or

sour

ce o

f wat

er fo

r ot

her

bene

ficia

l use

s su

ch a

s irr

igat

ion/

agric

ultu

re (

equi

vale

nt to

Cla

ss I

or II

A a

quife

r)Id

entif

ied

Pot

entia

l

Lim

ited

The

re is

no

thre

aten

ed w

ater

sup

ply

wel

l dow

ngra

dien

t of t

he s

ourc

e an

d th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

cur

rent

ly o

r po

tent

ially

usa

ble

for

drin

king

wat

er, i

rrig

atio

n, o

r ag

ricul

ture

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

I, II

A, o

r IIB

aqu

ifer)

The

re is

no

pote

ntia

lly th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y w

ell d

owng

radi

ent o

f the

sou

rce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is n

ot c

onsi

dere

d a

pote

ntia

l sou

rce

of d

rinki

ng w

ater

and

is o

f lim

ited

bene

ficia

l use

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

IIIA

or

IIIB

aqu

ifer,

or

whe

re p

erch

ed a

quife

r ex

ists

on

ly)

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r(R

F)*

*

FA

CT

OR

RA

TIN

GD

EF

INIT

ION

Con

tam

inat

ion

in th

e gr

ound

wat

er h

as m

oved

onl

y sl

ight

ly b

eyon

d th

e so

urce

(i.e

., te

ns o

f fee

t), c

ould

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

su

ffici

ent t

o m

ake

a de

term

inat

ion

of E

vide

nt o

r C

onfin

ed

*Eva

luat

e us

ing

com

paris

on v

alue

s in

App

endi

x B

-1**

Eva

luat

e us

ing

defin

ition

s an

d de

taile

d in

stru

ctio

ns in

Sec

tion

3.4

Figu

re 5

. R

elat

ive

Ris

k Si

te E

valu

atio

n Fa

ctor

Inf

orm

atio

n fo

r Su

rfac

e W

ater

and

Sed

imen

t

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] > 1

00

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] = 2

- 1

00

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] < 2

Sig

nific

ant

Min

imal

Co

nta

min

ant

Haz

ard

Fac

tor

(CH

F)*

Mod

erat

e

Ana

lytic

al d

ata

or o

bser

vabl

e ev

iden

ce in

dica

tes

that

con

tam

inat

ion

in th

e m

edia

is p

rese

nt a

t, m

ovin

g to

war

d, o

r ha

s m

oved

to a

poi

nt

of e

xpos

ure

Evi

dent

Pot

entia

l

Con

fined

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

entia

l for

con

tam

inan

t mig

ratio

n fr

om

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial p

oint

of e

xpos

ure

(cou

ld b

e du

e to

pre

senc

e of

geo

logi

cal s

truc

ture

s or

phy

sica

l con

trol

s)

Mig

rati

on

P

ath

way

F

acto

r (M

PF

)**

Rec

epto

rs id

entif

ied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eId

entif

ied

Pot

entia

l

Lim

ited

Pot

entia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

e

Littl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

e

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r(R

F)*

*

FA

CT

OR

RA

TIN

GD

EF

INIT

ION

* E

valu

ate

usin

g co

mpa

rison

val

ues

in A

ppen

dix

B-1

for

surf

ace

wat

er a

nd s

edim

ents

for

hum

an r

ecep

tors

. U

se c

ompa

rison

val

ues

in A

ppen

dix

B-2

for

surf

ace

wat

er a

nd e

colo

gica

l rec

epto

rs, a

nd c

ompa

rison

va

lues

in A

ppen

dix

B-3

for

sedi

men

ts a

nd e

colo

gica

l re

cept

ors.

**E

valu

ate

usin

g de

finiti

ons

and

deta

iled

inst

ruct

ions

in

Sec

tion

3.5

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of f

eet)

, cou

ld m

ove

but i

s no

t m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suf

ficie

nt to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fined

Figu

re 6

. R

elat

ive

Ris

k Si

te E

valu

atio

n Fa

ctor

Inf

orm

atio

n fo

r So

ils

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] > 1

00

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] = 2

- 1

00

Sum

of r

atio

s [m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion/

com

paris

on v

alue

] < 2

Sig

nific

ant

Min

imal

Co

nta

min

ant

Haz

ard

Fac

tor

(CH

F)*

Mod

erat

e

Ana

lytic

al d

ata

or o

bser

vabl

e ev

iden

ce th

at c

onta

min

atio

n is

pr

esen

t at,

is m

ovin

g to

war

d, o

r ha

s m

oved

to a

poi

nt o

f exp

osur

eE

vide

nt

Pot

entia

l

Con

fined

Con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of f

eet)

, cou

ld m

ove

but i

s no

t mov

ing

appr

ecia

bly,

or

info

rmat

ion

is n

ot s

uffic

ient

to m

ake

a de

term

inat

ion

of E

vide

nt o

r C

onfin

edLo

w p

ossi

bilit

y fo

r co

ntam

inat

ion

to b

e pr

esen

t at o

r m

igra

te to

a

poin

t of e

xpos

ure

Rec

epto

rs id

entif

ied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to c

onta

min

ated

soi

lId

entif

ied

Pot

entia

l

Lim

ited

Pot

entia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

to c

onta

min

ated

soi

l

Littl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

to c

onta

min

ated

so

il

FA

CT

OR

RA

TIN

GD

EF

INIT

ION

*Eva

luat

e us

ing

com

paris

on v

alue

s in

App

endi

x B

-1**

Eva

luat

e us

ing

defin

ition

s an

d de

taile

d in

stru

ctio

ns in

Sec

tion

3.6

Mig

rati

on

P

ath

way

F

acto

r (M

PF

)**

Rec

epto

rF

acto

r(R

F)*

*


instructions in Section 3. Use of factordefinitions and corresponding instructionsin Section 3 ensures a commoncategorization method across DoDComponents.

2.1 Contaminant Hazard Factor

The CHF is based on the ratio of themaximum concentration of a contaminantdetected in an environmental medium to arisk-based comparison value for thatcontaminant in that medium. Detectedcontamination must be recent yetrepresentative of site conditions. Comparisonvalues are listed in Appendix B.

For carcinogens, the comparison value forhuman health is the concentration thatpresents a 1-in-10,000 risk of increasedcancer incidence, which is the remedialaction threshold for carcinogens defined inthe Preamble to the National Oil andHazardous Substance Pollution ContingencyPlan (55 Federal Register 8716, March 8,1990) and by Directive 9355.0-30 of theOffice of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse, U.S. EPA (22 April 1991). Fornon-carcinogens, the comparison value forhuman health is the concentration thatprovides an exposed individual with the dailyreference dose (RfD), which is the estimateddaily exposure level of a contaminant to ahuman population below which adverse non-cancer health effects are not anticipated.

For ecological endpoint evaluations,comparison values are based on ambientwater quality criteria (for the surface watermedium) or sediment screening valuesdeveloped by either NOAA or the OntarioMinistry of Environment and Energy.

For a medium that contains more than onecontaminant, the ratios from the individualcontaminants are added. A CHF ofsignificant (sum of ratios is greater than100), moderate (from 2 to 100), or minimal(less than 2) is assigned on the basis of the

magnitude of the ratio or sum of ratios. Thebreakpoints were established by theinterservice working group after reviewingthe results of a considerable number of sitedistributions derived from a range ofdifferent breakpoints. Further discussion ofthese breakpoints is provided in Question 11of the Question and Answer Factsheet,contained in Appendix E. The mechanics ofthe CHF calculations are described in detailin Section 3.3 of the Instructions.

2.2 Migration Pathway Factor

Information about migration pathways ofcontamination for a site is summarized asthe MPF. MPFs of evident, potential, orconfined are determined by matchingavailable site information on pathways withthe corresponding definitions about thelikelihood of contaminant migration shownin Figures 4 through 6. Individuals or groupsperforming the relative risk site evaluationsshould determine the MPF on the basis ofconsideration of available site information,the definitions in Figures 4 through 6, thedetailed instructions associated withmedium-specific MPF evaluations inSection 3, and professional judgment.

2.3 Receptor Factor

Information about the present or futurelikelihood of receptors for each site issummarized as the RF. RFs of identified,potential, or limited are determined bymatching available information on receptorsat sites with the definitions in Figures 4through 6. These statements, like those forthe MPF, should be considered on the basisof available information, detailedinstructions associated with medium-specific RF evaluations in Section 3, andprofessional judgment.

Human and ecological receptors (i.e.,endpoints for exposure) to be consideredare as follows:


• Groundwater. Human receptors includethose individuals that may be exposed togroundwater contamination via onsiteand downgradient water supply wellsused for human consumption or in foodproduction. Groundwater can beclassified using EPA's Guidelines forGroundwater Classification Under theEPA Groundwater Protection Strategy,Office of Groundwater Protection, 1986.This classification scheme is presentedin Table 1 and is used together withdefinitions and instructions to assist inthe determination of the groundwater RF(see Figure 4). Ecological receptors arenot evaluated.

Surface Water and Sediment. Thesetwo media are discussed together sincethey potentially affect the samereceptors. Human receptors for surfacewater and sediment share the samemigration pathway and, therefore,include those individuals that may beexposed to surface water or sedimentcontamination through onsite anddowngradient water supplies andrecreational areas. Receptors includedowngradient water supplies used fordrinking water, irrigation of food crops,watering of livestock, aquaculture, andrecreational activities such as fishing.Ecological receptors for surface waterand sediment are limited to criticalhabitats and other environments listedin Table 2 that can be reasonablyexpected to be impacted by a site.

• Surface Soil. Human receptors includeresidents, people in schools and daycare,and workers who have direct access tocontamination on a frequent basis.Ecological receptors are not consideredfor evaluation of the surface soil sinceecological standards are generally notavailable for the CHF calculation.Ecological receptors may beincorporated into the soil evaluation ifecological standards become available.

2.4 Site Categorization

For each medium at a site, the CHF, MPF,and RF are combined using the relative risksite evaluation matrix shown in Figure 7 toobtain the relative risk (High, Medium, orLow) for that medium. The highest relativerisk site evaluation result for a mediumdetermines the relative risk designation forthe site, according to the process illustratedin Figure 2. Where sufficient data areavailable, evaluate all four environmentalmedia and their associated endpoints for asite, since the data establish a site baselinethat is used throughout the relative risk siteevaluation process to show changes againstthe baseline due to the implementation ofresponse actions.


Table 1. EPA Groundwater Classification Guidelines*

Class I Groundwater** Special groundwater is (1) highly vulnerable tocontamination because of the hydrological characteristicsof the areas in which it occurs and (2) irreplaceable; noreasonable alternative source of drinking water isavailable to substantial populations.

If water supply wells inClass I groundwater arethreatened, the receptorfactor is Identified.

If water supply wells inClass I groundwater arenot threatened thereceptor factor isPotential.

Class II Groundwater Current and potential source of drinking water and waterhaving other beneficial uses includes all othergroundwater that is currently used (IIA) or is potentiallyavailable (IIB) for drinking water, agriculture, or otherbeneficial use.

If water supply wells inClass IIA groundwater arethreatened, the receptorfactor is Identified.

If water supply wells inClass IIA groundwater arenot threatened, thereceptor factor isPotential.

If groundwater is ClassIIB, the receptor factor isPotential.

Class III Groundwater Groundwater that is not considered a potential source ofdrinking water and of limited beneficial use (Class IIIAand Class IIIB), is saline (i.e., it has a total dissolvedsolids level over 10,000 milligrams per liter [mg/l]), or isotherwise contaminated by naturally occurringconstituents or human activity that is not associated witha particular waste disposal activity or another site beyondlevels that allow remediation using methods reasonablyemployed in public water treatment systems. Class IIIalso includes groundwater that is not available insufficient quantity at any depth to meet the needs of anaverage household.

Class IIIA includes groundwater that is interconnected tosurface water or adjacent groundwater that potentiallycould be used for drinking water.

Class IIIB includes groundwater that has nointerconnection to surface water or adjacent aquifers.

If groundwater is ClassIII, the receptor factor isLimited.

*Guidelines for Groundwater Classification Under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, Office of GroundwaterProtection, December 1986.

**Special groundwater is also ecologically vital; the aquifer provides the base flow for a particularly sensitive ecological systemthat, if polluted, would destroy a unique habitat (this characteristic is not applicable for relative risk site evaluation sinceecological receptors are not evaluated for groundwater)


Table 2. List of Ecological Receptors*(based on 55 FR 51624, 14 December 1990)

Critical habitata for federal designated endangered or threatened species

Marine Sanctuary

National Park

Designated Federal Wilderness Area

Areas identified under Coastal Zone Management Actb

Sensitive areas identified under National Estuary Programc or Near Coastal Waters Programd

Critical areas identified under the Clean Lakes Programe

National Seashore Recreational Area

National Lakeshore Recreational Area

Habitat known to be used by federal designated or proposed endangered or threatened species

National Preserve

National or State Wildlife Refuge

Unit of Coastal Barrier Resources System

Coastal Barrier (undeveloped)

Federal land designated for protection of natural ecosystems

Administratively Proposed Federal Wilderness Area

Spawning areas critical for the maintenance of fish or shellfish species within river, lake, orcoastal tidal watersf

Migratory pathways and feeding areas critical for maintenance of anadromous fish specieswithin river reaches or areas in lakes or coastal tidal waters in which the fish spend extendedperiods of time

Terrestrial areas utilized for breeding by large or dense aggregations of animalsg

National river reach designated as Recreationala Critical habitat as defined in 50 CFR 424.02b Areas identified in State Coastal Zone Management plans as requiring protection because of ecological valuec National Estuary Program study areas (subareas within estuaries) identified in Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plans as requiring protection because they support critical life stages of key estuarine species (Section320 of Clean Water Act, as amended)

d Near Coastal Waters as defined in Sections 104(b)(3), 304(1), 319, and 320 of Clean Water Act, as amendede Clean Lakes Program critical areas (subareas within lakes, or in some cases entire small lakes) identified by State

Clean Lake Plans as critical habitat (Section 314 of Clean Water Act, as amended)f Limited to areas described as being used for intense or concentrated spawning by a given speciesg For the surface water migration pathway, limited to terrestrial vertebrate species with aquatic or semiaquatic

foraging habits*See Section A.4 of the Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, OSWER Directive 9345.1-07, November 1992,for sources of information on how to identify these receptors. Information on how to obtain this guidance can befound in Section 5 of this Primer.

Figu

re 7

. R

elat

ive

Ris

k Si

te E

valu

atio

n M

atri

x

CH

F=

Con

tam

inan

t Haz

ard

Fac

tor

MP

F=

Mig

ratio

n P

athw

ay F

acto

rR

F=

Rec

epto

r F

acto

rH

=

Hig

hM

= M

ediu

mL

= L

ow

Evi

dent

Pot

entia

l

Con

fined

Iden

tifie

dP

oten

tial

Lim

ited

CH

F =

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

HH H

M M

MM

L

H

RF

Evi

dent

Pot

entia

l

Con

fined

Iden

tifie

dP

oten

tial

Lim

ited

CH

F =

MO

DE

RA

TE

HH

H

M

ML

LL

L

RF

Evi

dent

Pot

entia

l

Con

fined

Iden

tifie

dP

oten

tial

Lim

ited

CH

F =

MIN

IMA

L*

HM

M

L

LL

LLL

RF

MP

F

MP

F

MP

F

*If s

ampl

ing

resu

lts fo

r a

part

icul

ar m

ediu

m a

re b

elow

det

ectio

n lim

its o

r ar

e de

tect

ed w

ithin

est

ablis

hed

back

grou

nd c

once

ntra

tion

rang

es, t

hen

that

med

ium

sho

uld

auto

mat

ical

ly b

e as

sign

ed a

rat

ing

of L

ow

.


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


3 Instructions for Relative Risk Site Evaluations

This section provides a set of general andspecific instructions for conducting relativerisk site evaluations at installations andformerly used defense sites (FUDS). Thegeneral instructions in Section 3.1 applythroughout the evaluation. Instructions onperforming medium-specific evaluations andcompleting specific parts of the RelativeRisk Site Evaluation Worksheet follow inSections 3.2 through 3.6. Because it formsthe basis of so much of the evaluation, theCHF, as it applies to all media, is discussedin detail. Following that, instructions forevaluating each medium are given, withspecific instructions for each of the factors inthat medium.

3.1 General Instructions

Use the Relative Risk Site EvaluationWorksheet, in Appendix A (or its electronicequivalent), to record pertinent informationon the site being evaluated. Page 1 of theWorksheet asks for information on the site.Pages 2 through 7 ask for information on eachenvironmental medium (groundwater, surfacewater [human and ecological endpoints],sediment [human and ecological endpoints],and soil) and cover determinations of theCHF, MPF, and RF for each medium.

Proceed through the Worksheet using thespecific instructions in this Primer. Evaluateall media with reliable analytical data at allsites; designate those sites without reliableanalytical data as “Not Evaluated.” SeeFigure 3 for an illustration of this decisionlogic.

Use the most recent yet representativesampling and analysis data from existingrestoration documents or databases tocomplete the Worksheet; additional datagathering activities are not required.

Examples of such documents includecompleted site inspections, remedialinvestigations, feasibility studies,engineering evaluations/cost analysis studies,records of decision, decision documents,design documents, performance monitoringreports, and equivalent types of information.

When conducting relative risk siteevaluations for sites contaminated solelywith petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL),do not use Total Petroleum Hydrocarbondata. Instead, use the concentrations forbenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene(BTEX) compounds in each medium,together with corresponding BTEXstandards, to calculate the CHF. Support forusing BTEX compounds in the evaluation ofPOL contamination can be found in Use ofRisk Based Standards for Cleanup ofPetroleum Contaminated Soil (Departmentof the Air Force, June 1994).

When conducting relative risk site evaluationsfor sites contaminated with POL and othercontaminants, use the concentrations forBTEX compounds and the other contaminantspresent, together with their correspondingcomparison values, to calculate the CHF.

Do not perform relative risk siteevaluations at sites that are categorized aseither “response complete” (RC) or “allremedies in place” (RIP). See Sections 1.4and 4 for these definitions. Do not performrelative risk site evaluations on sites withoutreliable concentration data. These sitesshould be categorized as Not Evaluated(NE). Finally, do not perform relative risksite evaluations on PRP sites and sitescomprised solely of ordnance.


3.2 Site Information

The first page of the Worksheet asks forinformation on the background of the siteand a summary of key elements ofinformation about the site.

Site Background Information. Provide arecord of basic information on the following:the installation’s name (property name forFUDS), location, site name (project name forFUDS), and Restoration ManagementInformation System (RMIS)/Defense SiteEnvironmental Restoration Tracking System(DSERTS) identification number (projectnumber for FUDS), contact person, date ofrelative risk site evaluation, media evaluated,site execution phase from which data areavailable (e.g., site inspection, remedialinvestigation, remedial design), agreementstatus of the site, and site type. Applicableregulatory agreements and their codes and alist of site types are found in Appendix C.Much of this information is available fromexisting DoD Component databases and istypically imported from these into appropriatedata fields for each site. For example,agreement status and site type codes areavailable in and obtained fromRMIS/DSERTS.

The background information will aid inunderstanding the quality of informationused in site evaluations, the level ofuncertainty associated with the data, andanticipated follow-on phases of execution. Itwill also assist in explaining activities at thesite to stakeholders.

Site Summary (“Project Summary” forFUDS). Briefly describe the source ofcontamination (materials disposed of) at thesite, the exposure setting (the site’s physicalenvironment), and any potentially exposedhuman and ecological receptors. Theemphasis should be on including the keyelements of information used to conduct therelative risk site evaluation. As noted on the

summary sheet, you may include a mapand/or cross section of the site.

Preparers of worksheets should alsodetermine their Component-specificprocedures for submitting relative risk siteevaluation documentation.

3.3 Evaluation of Contaminant HazardFactor

This subsection discusses the general method,common to all environmental media, forevaluating the CHF. The CHF will besignificant, moderate, or minimal, based onsumming the ratios of maximum contaminantconcentrations in each medium tocorresponding comparison values inAppendices B-1, B-2, or B-3, as appropriate.The CHF is significant for a medium when thesum of the ratios for that medium exceeds 100,moderate when the sum of the ratios is from2 to 100, and minimal when the sum of theratios is less than 2. (See Figures 8 and 9.)

Select contaminants for inclusion in the CHFevaluation for each medium and list them onthe Worksheet. Only chemicals listed in theappropriate Appendix (B-1, B-2, or B-3)can be included. Total PetroleumHydrocarbons (TPH) is not included, and onlyspecific petroleum constituents are listed.Select only those contaminants havingreliable analytical data, using the mostrecent yet representative sampling andanalysis data. General considerations forselecting contaminants are discussed at theend of this subsection, while considerationsspecific to each medium are discussed underthe specific instructions for the medium. If noreliable concentration data are available forany contaminants for the medium, noevaluation can be made of that medium, andthe medium should be rated as “NotEvaluated.” If sampling results for a particularmedium are below detection limits or aredetected within established background

[D] m

axS

td**

**=

X

2

Co

nta

min

ants

Cal

cula

tio

n**

***

Rat

ing

Car

cino

gen

A:

[A

]* max

Car

cino

gen

B:

[B

] max

Non

-car

cino

gen

C:

[C] m

ax

Eco

logi

cal D

:

[D] m

ax

>10

0

= S

igni

fican

t CH

F2-

100

= M

oder

ate

CH

F<

2

=

Min

imal

CH

F

Std

**-

Com

paris

on v

alue

bas

ed o

n 10

h

uman

can

cer

inci

denc

e-4

Std

***

- C

ompa

rison

val

ue b

ased

on

refe

renc

e do

se fo

r hu

man

sS

td**

**-

Com

paris

on v

alue

for

ecol

ogic

al r

ecep

tors

whe

re a

vaila

ble

***

**U

se c

ompa

rison

val

ues

in A

ppen

dix

B-1

, B-2

, or

B-3

, as

appr

opria

te

Not

e: C

onta

min

ants

pos

ing

a th

reat

to e

colo

gica

l rec

epto

rs (

i.e.,

ecol

ogic

al c

onta

min

ants

) m

ust b

e ev

alua

ted

sepa

rate

ly fr

om th

ose

posi

ng a

thre

at to

hum

an r

ecep

tors

Figu

re 8

. M

echa

nics

of

the

Con

tam

inan

t Haz

ard

Fact

or C

alcu

latio

n

[A]* m

ax[B

] max

[C] m

ax+

+S

td**

Std

**S

td**

*

- M

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion

in m

ediu

m

=

X1

[A]*

[D]

Std

****

= X

2

Co

nta

min

ants

C

alcu

lati

on

****

*R

atin

g

= X

1

Car

cino

gen

A:

[A]*

max

Car

cino

gen

B:

[B] m

axN

on-c

arci

noge

n C

: [C

] max

Eco

logi

cal D

:

[D] m

ax

Car

cino

gen/

Non

-car

cino

gen

E:

[E] m

ax

>10

0

= S

igni

fican

t CH

F2-

100

= M

oder

ate

CH

F<

2

=

Min

imal

CH

F

Std

**-

Com

paris

on v

alue

bas

ed o

n 10

hu

man

can

cer

inci

denc

eS

td**

*-

Com

paris

on v

alue

bas

ed o

n re

fere

nce

dose

for

hum

ans

Std

****

- C

ompa

rison

val

ue fo

r ec

olog

ical

rec

epto

rs w

here

ava

ilabl

e

***

**U

se c

ompa

rison

val

ues

in A

ppen

dix

B-1

, B-2

, or

B-3

, as

appr

opria

te

Not

e: C

onta

min

ants

pos

ing

a th

reat

to e

colo

gica

l rec

epto

rs (

i.e.,

ecol

ogic

al c

onta

min

ants

) m

ust b

e ev

alua

ted

sepa

rate

ly fr

om th

ose

posi

ng a

thre

at to

hum

an r

ecep

tors

Figu

re 9

. M

echa

nics

of

the

Con

tam

inan

t Haz

ard

Fact

or C

alcu

latio

n fo

r Su

bsta

nces

w

ith b

oth

Car

cino

geni

c an

d N

on-C

arci

noge

nic

Eff

ects

[A]* m

ax[B

] max

[C] m

ax[E

] max

[E] m

ax

Std

**

Std

**

Std

***

S

td**

S

td**

*

++

++

[A]*

- M

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion

in m

ediu

m

max

-4


concentration ranges, then that medium shouldautomatically be assigned a rating of Low. Ifsampling results for each and every mediumsampled are below detection or are withinestablished background concentration ranges,the site is automatically assigned a category ofLow (see Figure 3).

For each contaminant listed on the Worksheet,record the most recent yet representativemaximum detected concentration of thatcontaminant in that medium at that site on theWorksheet. Adjacent to this value record theappropriate comparison value for thecontaminant from Appendix B-1, B-2, or B-3.(See the instructions for each medium for thecomparison values appropriate to that medium.)Calculate the ratio to be listed on the Worksheetby dividing the maximum concentration by thecomparison value. Select only thosecontaminants having reliable analytical data,using the most recent sampling and analysis datawhich is representative of the site.

Sum the column of ratio values to obtain thetotal value (Figures 8 and 9). Where a lengthyseries of analyses has been carried out, it is notnecessary to list every contaminant found.However, the Worksheet should include allcontaminants of concern that are attributableto the site, especially those that produce thehighest ratios of observed concentrations to theircomparison values. The highest ratios do notnecessarily result from contaminants with thehighest concentrations. Extremely carcinogenicor toxic compounds may have very lowcomparison values and therefore result in thehighest ratios.

The existence of high ratio values will lead to ahigher rating for the CHF. Note that the CHF issignificant when the sum of the ratios exceeds100. Every attempt should be made to includeall contaminants of concern present at a site forthe CHF calculation in order to be able tocompare current site evaluations with futureones.

In selecting contaminants with reliableanalytical data, review the contaminants thathave been detected in the medium and that canbe reasonably attributed to the site. Attributionimplies that the contaminant concentrations aredistinguishable from backgroundconcentrations. Do not include naturallyoccurring compounds that are detectedwithin established background concentrationranges. Additionally, if all analytical data arewithin established background ranges for amedium or site, automatically assign thatmedium or site a rating of Low. Allcontaminants that have been reliably reported atconcentrations near or above the detection limitcan be included.

For contaminants with reliable analytical data,record only the maximum concentration foundin the medium for each contaminant. Thecontaminants need not have been detected at thesame location, but contaminant data should berecent and representative of conditions at thesite. Additional considerations specific to eachmedium are discussed in the instructions for thatmedium.

To implement the requirements of thissection (use reliable data, do no use resultsthat are less than detection limits, do no useresults within background ranges) mediawith CHF values below 0.005 will be assigneda category of Low.

3.4 Evaluation of Groundwater

The evaluation of the groundwater medium issummarized in Figure 4. Groundwatercontaminant data used in site evaluations mustbe based on groundwater samples affected bythe site. The sampling location need not be oninstallation property, but contamination must beattributable to the site. The groundwater samplelocation (i.e., a well) may be a source ofdrinking water or irrigation water, or it may be amonitoring well. A well that is confirmed to beupgradient from the site does not providesuitable data for this evaluation.


If a well is thought to be influenced by morethan one site, exercise additional care inselecting the data to be used. Select onlycontaminants that can reasonably be linkedto past practices at the site. If, for example,a site was contaminated by trichloroethylene(TCE) and an adjacent site had been shownto have chromium contamination, eventhough both TCE and chromium may appearin groundwater samples downgradient fromthe sites, restrict the evaluation of each sitesolely to the specific contaminants that canbe reasonably linked to the site. Dependingon past practices, this could be both the TCEand chromium or just the chromium or justthe TCE.

Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF).Review the most recent yet representativeanalytical data to determine whatcontaminants have been detected ingroundwater at or near the site and which ofthese contaminants can be reasonablyattributed to the site. Attribution implies thatthe contaminant concentrations aredistinguishable from backgroundconcentrations. For metals, analyses areoften available for both the dissolvedfraction and the “total” concentration. Thedissolved data are preferred for thisevaluation and should be used if available.

For each contaminant listed on theWorksheet, note a maximum detectedconcentration in ug/l. Adjacent to this value,record the comparison value for the con-taminant, using the values in Appendix B-l.For groundwater use the value listed under“water,” which is reported in units of ug/l.

Migration Pathway Factor (MPF). Themigration of a contaminant from a site intoand through groundwater is dependent upona complex interaction of the physical andchemical properties of the contaminant, thehydrologic environment surrounding thesite, and the presence or absence of physicalfactors that could impede transport. The

likelihood of transport of contaminants viagroundwater is evaluated qualitatively asevident, potential, or confined (seeFigure 4), based on available informationfor a site and professional judgment.

The MPF is evaluated as evident only ifanalytical data or direct observationindicates that contamination in thegroundwater is moving or has moved awayfrom the area under the source. The dataused in this evaluation may be from awater supply well or monitoring well(see Figure 10 for illustrations).

The MPF is potential under the followingconditions:

• Contamination in the groundwater islargely restricted to the area directlyunder the source or only slightly beyondthe edge of the source (i.e., tens of feet)

• There is no evidence of appreciablecontaminant migration in groundwater,but subsurface soil contamination hasbeen identified, the contaminants havephysical properties that suggest they aremobile, and there are no known barriersto migration. A leaking undergroundstorage tank above the water table is anexample.

• Information is not available to supportan MPF of evident or confined.

The MPF is confined at sites where thecontaminants in the source have very littlepotential to migrate to groundwater, orwhere contaminated groundwater has littlepotential to be transported down-gradient.Confined conditions may be due to physicalbarriers to migration, such as a hydraulicbarrier created by an installed and properlyoperating removal or remedial action, or aconfining clay layer between the source andgroundwater. There may be limited netprecipitation (i.e., 0 to 5 inches per year) to

CL

AS

S I

or

IIAA

qu

ifer

Act

ive

Wat

erS

up

ply

Wel

ls

Pro

per

lyA

ban

do

ned

Wel

l

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

MP

F =

Evi

den

tR

F =

Iden

tifi

ed

CL

AS

S I,

IIA

, or

IIBA

qu

ifer

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

M

PF

= P

ote

nti

alR

F =

Po

ten

tial

So

urc

e

So

urc

e w

ith

sig

nif

ican

t su

bsu

rfac

e

so

il co

nta

min

atio

n

Wat

erS

up

ply

Wel

ls

CL

AS

S I

or

IIAA

qu

ifer

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

M

PF

= E

vid

ent

RF

= Id

enti

fied

CL

AS

S II

I A

qu

ifer

or

Per

ched

Aq

uif

er

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

M

PF

= C

on

fin

edR

F =

Lim

ited

So

urc

e

So

urc

e

Figu

re 1

0. E

xam

ple

Scen

ario

s fo

r th

e G

roun

dwat

er M

ediu

m


drive soil contamination towardsgroundwater, and/or groundwater may belocated several hundred feet below theground surface with very long travel timesfor contamination to reach groundwater.

Receptor Factor (RF). Possible RFs areidentified, potential, and limited (seeFigure 4). Only human receptors areconsidered for groundwater exposure, andno distinction is made for the type ofreceptor (e.g., workers versus residents) orthe number of receptors.

Evaluate the RF as identified if a currentlyused water supply well downgradient fromthe source is threatened. A threatened watersupply well is one that is impacted bycontamination, or will likely be impacted bycontamination within a reasonabletimeframe. The water supply must beequivalent to either EPA Class I or Class IIAgroundwater, as outlined in Table 1. The RFis potential if there are no threatened watersupply wells downgradient from the source,but the groundwater is currently orpotentially usable for drinking water,irrigation, or agriculture. The water supplyshould be equivalent to EPA Class I,Class IIA, or Class IIB groundwater(Table 1). The RF is limited when there is nopotentially threatened groundwater supplywell downgradient from the source and thegroundwater is not considered to be apotential source of drinking water and is oflimited beneficial use. This is a water supplyequivalent to Class III groundwater(Table 1), such as saline water or an aquiferwith insufficient production to meet theneeds of an average household, for example,a perched aquifer (see Figure 10). Do notinclude properly abandoned wells in the RFevaluation.

3.5 Evaluation of Surface Water andSediment

The evaluations for the surface water andsediment media are summarized in Figure 5.Consult a topographic map that includes thesite under evaluation when evaluatingsurface water and sediment factors. Atopographic map will reveal surface waterfeatures that potentially can be affected bythe site and will provide a view of potentialmigration pathways toward surface waterreceptors. Either water or sediment samplescan be used to document the presence andmigration of contaminants (and in somecases receptors) for this evaluation.

Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF). Forcontaminants in surface water with apotential for human exposure, usecomparison values in Appendix B-1 under“water,” which are reported in units of ug/l.For contaminants in surface water with apotential for ecological exposure, usecomparison values in Appendix B-2, whichare reported in units of ug/l. Forcontaminants in sediment with a potentialfor human exposure, use values in AppendixB-1 under the “soil” column, which arereported in units of mg/kg. For contaminantsin sediments with a potential for ecologicalexposure, use comparison values inAppendix B-3, which are reported in units ofmg/kg. Only contaminants with comparisonvalues in the appropriate tables are to beincluded in the CHF calculation. Asignificant CHF is greater than 100. Amoderate CHF is from 2 to 100. A minimalCHF is less than 2. (See Figures 8 and 9.)

Review the most recent yet representativeanalytical data to determine whatcontaminants have been detected in surfacewater and sediment at or near the site andwhich of these contaminants can bereasonably attributed to the site. Attributionimplies that the contaminant concentrations


are distinguishable from backgroundconcentrations. Samples collected fromsurface streams, drainage ditches, rivers,lakes, wetlands, and embayments are allappropriate. Samples do not have to becollected adjacent to the site, but greaterdistances often make attribution to the sitemore difficult, and dilution fromdownstream tributaries often reducesobserved contaminant concentrations.

For metals in surface water samples,analyses are often available for both thedissolved fraction and the “total”concentration. If they are available, use thedata on the dissolved fraction.

Sediment is the result of deposition of solidmaterial from the water. Obtain sedimentsamples from surface water bodies receivingrunoff from the site or from areas such asswales and ditches that are known to havetransported water from the site.

For each contaminant listed on theWorksheet, note a maximum detectedconcentration. Use units of ug/l for watersamples and mg/kg for sediment samples.Adjacent to this value record the comparisonvalue for the contaminant using theappropriate subsection of Appendix B.

Migration Pathway Factor (MPF). Thelikelihood of transport of contaminants viasurface water or sediment is evaluatedqualitatively as evident, potential, orconfined (see Figure 5). Base MPFevaluations on available information andprofessional judgment. The MPF is evidentif analytical data or direct observationindicates that contaminants in surface waterand sediments are present at a point ofexposure for a surface water receptor orhave moved in surface water or sedimentsaway from the source towards a point ofexposure for a surface water receptor. Wateror sediment samples can provide theanalytical data. Showing the actual

movement of contaminated runoff from asource toward a point of exposure is neededfor direct observation (see Figure 11).

The MPF is potential in any instance wherethere is information to suggestcontamination could move away from thesource toward a point of exposure for asurface water receptor, or has movedslightly beyond the source area (i.e., tens offeet). Where there is insufficient informationto support an MPF of evident or confined,the MPF defaults to potential.

Application of the confined MPF to a siterequires information that transport ofcontaminants from the source by surfacewater to a potential point of exposure to asurface water receptor is restricted. Reasonsto believe such a condition could existinclude the following:

• The site has engineered runon/runoffcontrols that can effectively interrupttransport of contaminants to surfacewater.

• Removal or remedial actions have beenimplemented that restrict the movementof contaminants away from the source.

• The contamination at the source is belowthe ground surface and is not subject toerosion or interaction with surface water.For example, leaking undergroundstorage tanks may result in subsurfacesoil and groundwater contamination butnot contamination of surface water.

• Topographic conditions prevent surfacewater from leaving the immediate areaof the site. If there is effectively norunoff from the site to surface water,there will be no migration ofcontaminants to points of exposure. Thismay also occur in areas with very lowrainfall, perhaps with only nearbyephemeral streams. In some areassurface water may be completely lost togroundwater recharge.

Figu

re 1

1. E

xam

ple

Scen

ario

s fo

r th

e Su

rfac

e W

ater

and

Sed

imen

t Med

ia

Dra

inag

edi

tch

Crit

ical

hab

itat f

or

thre

aten

ed o

r en

dang

ered

spe

cies

Riv

er

Sou

rce

Wit

h Id

enti

fied

Eco

log

ical

Rec

epto

rs

CH

F =

As

calc

ulat

edM

PF

= P

oten

tial

RF

=

Iden

tifie

d

Dra

inag

edi

tch

Wat

er s

uppl

y in

take

Riv

er

Sou

rce

Wit

h Id

enti

fied

Hu

man

Rec

epto

rs

CH

F =

As

calc

ulat

edM

PF

= E

vide

ntR

F

= Id

entif

ied

Con

tam

inat

ion

Loca

lized

S

edim

ent

Con

tam

inat

ion

at s

ite

boun

dary

(i.e.

, ten

s of

feet

)

Wit

h P

ote

nti

al H

um

an R

ecep

tors

CH

F =

As

calc

ulat

edM

PF

= C

onfin

edR

F

= L

imite

d

Rem

ote

Are

a w

ith

ou

t R

ecep

tors

Dra

inag

e D

itch

Riv

er

Sou

rce Eng

inee

red

Ber

m

Dra

inag

edi

tch

Pos

sibl

e w

ater

su

pply

inta

ke

Riv

er

Sou

rce

CH

F =

As

calc

ulat

edM

PF

= E

vide

ntR

F

= P

oten

tial

Con

tam

inat

ion


Note that the rationale for a confined MPFmust be based upon hydrologic factors; watermust be prevented from coming into contactwith contaminated sources or moving to apotential point of exposure for a surfacewater receptor. The chemical or physicalcharacteristics of the contaminants, althoughimportant in determining transportmechanisms, will not in themselves preventsuch transport. The chemical and physicalproperties of a contaminant may determinewhether it will be transported primarily in adissolved form or adsorbed on particulatematter, but if the contaminant is in contactwith surface water and subject to erosiveforces, it will tend to move. Further, theexistence of manmade structures, such asdams, or the presence of lakes and reservoirsin the surface water pathway does notnecessarily imply a confined condition.Although the travel time for the contaminantswill undoubtedly be affected by suchstructures, the migration pathway may still beuninterrupted.

Receptor Factor (RF). Receptors could besubject to a number of exposure scenariosassociated with surface water and sediment.Surface water can be a source of drinkingwater and is often used for recreationalactivities such as boating, swimming, andfishing. Human exposure could occurthrough the use of surface water for drinkingwater, the incidental ingestion of surfacewater during recreational activity, dermalcontact with surface water or sediments,ingestion of aquatic species caught in thewater body for human consumption, and theuse of surface water for watering livestock orirrigation of human food crops. Aquaticspecies, considered part of the human foodchain, could potentially include fresh andmarine species, such as finfish, shellfish,shrimp, squid, snails, and crayfish.Ecological receptors to be considered arerestricted to those areas specificallyidentified in Table 2.

The RF can be identified, potential, or limited(see Figure 5). Rate the RF as identifiedwhenever receptors have been specificallyidentified as having access to surface wateror sediment to which the contaminants havemoved or can move. This could potentiallyinclude the use of water as drinking water,for irrigating human food crops, for wateringlivestock, and for supporting recreationalactivity, including fishing. It could alsoinclude the presence of ecological areasdownstream from the site and within thesurface water migration pathway (seeFigure 11).

The RF is potential if there are no knownuses of surface water as outlined above, butthe potential for such use is thought to existbecause of nearby populations or predictedfuture development.

The RF is limited when it is unlikely thathuman population will come into contactwith the water or sediment and when thereare no ecological receptors apparent. Theseconditions, as they apply to humans, may bemet in remote areas or areas in which accessis highly restricted.

3.6 Evaluation of Surface Soils

Samples for the soil evaluation should befrom a depth of 0 to 6 inches. If samples arenot available from this interval, samples fromdepths up to 24 inches can be used.Preference is given to shallower sampleswhen there is a choice. In no instance shouldsamples deeper than 24 inches be used. Forthe purpose of this evaluation, the hazardposed by subsurface soil contaminants (e.g.,a buried leaking storage tank deeper than24 inches) is assumed to be assessed by theevaluation of groundwater (based on actualgroundwater sampling data), which would bethe most probable pathway of deep soilcontaminant migration to humans.


Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF). Forcontaminants in surface soils with apotential for human exposure, usecomparison values in Appendix B-1 under“soil,” which are reported in units of mg/kg.Contaminants in soils with a potential forecological exposure are not evaluated sincecomparison values for such contaminants donot currently exist. A significant CHF isgreater than 100. A moderate CHF is from 2to 100. A minimal CHF is less than 2 (seeFigures 8 and 9).

Review the most recent yet representativeanalytical data to determine whatcontaminants have been detected in surfacesoils at the site. Attribution of thecontaminants to the site requires that theobserved concentrations are distinguishablefrom background.

For each contaminant listed on theWorksheet, note a maximum detectedconcentration in mg/kg (ppm). Adjacent tothis value, record the comparison value forthe contaminant, using the values inAppendix B-1.

Migration Pathway Factor (MPF). Thelikelihood of transport of contaminantsthrough soil is evaluated qualitatively asevident, potential, or confined (see Figure 6for definitions). Base MPF evaluations onavailable information and professionaljudgment. Assign evident to the MPF ifanalytical data or direct observationindicates that contamination is present at, ismoving toward, or has moved to a point ofexposure. This may be determined throughanalysis of runoff or observation ofsecondary sources as a result of theslumping of soil or wind erosion.

Assign potential to the MPF ifcontamination has moved only slightlybeyond the source (i.e., tens of feet) or itcould move but is not moving appreciably.Where there is insufficient information to

support an MPF of evident or confined, theMPF defaults to potential (see Figure 12).This rating would be appropriate when thethere is no evidence of movement from anunconfined source or when bermssurrounding sources are old, eroding, orotherwise unmaintained.

To apply the confined MPF to a site requiresinformation that transport of contaminatedsurface soil from the site to a point ofexposure is restricted. Reasons to believesuch confinement exists include thepresence of site barriers such as buildings,maintained berms, and pavement or capsthat prevent contact with the contaminatedsoil or prevent the contaminated soil frommoving to a point of exposure. Whenconducting relative risk site evaluations forsoils, take into account remediesimplemented to contain or confine soilcontamination.

Receptor Factor (RF). Soil receptorsinclude only those humans with the potentialto come into contact with contaminatedsurface soils, including residents, personsattending school or daycare on the site or inproximity to the site, and workers who havedirect access to soil contamination on afrequent long-term basis.

The RF can be identified, potential, orlimited (see Figure 6 for definitions). TheRF is identified if analytical data or directobservation indicates that people reside orfrequently work, recreate, or attend schoolor daycare in the area of contamination. Ifthere are no workplaces, residences, schools,or daycare centers in the area ofcontamination, but access is not restricted,the RF is potential (see Figure 12).

Evaluate the RF as limited when it isunlikely that humans will come into contactwith the contaminated soil. This would beappropriate when the MPF is confined.

Dir

t R

oad

Rem

ote

Are

a

Dirt Road

Res

iden

tial

Are

a

Su

rfac

e S

oil

So

ilC

on

tam

inat

ion

(u

nd

er p

avem

ent)

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

MP

F =

Co

nfi

ned

RF

=

Lim

ited

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

MP

F =

Evi

den

tR

F

= P

ote

nti

al

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

MP

F =

Po

ten

tial

RF

=

Po

ten

tial

CH

F =

As

calc

ula

ted

MP

F =

Evi

den

tR

F

= Id

enti

fied

Mai

ntai

ned

Fenc

e

Tre

es

Figu

re 1

2. E

xam

ple

Scen

ario

s fo

r th

e So

il M

ediu

m

Old

Ber

m

Pav

ed

Are

a

Po

ten

tial

Po

int

of

Exp

osu

re

(op

en a

rea

on

ind

ust

rial

gro

un

ds)

Ind

ust

rial

Are

a

Dis

po

sal

area

on

hill

Exp

and

ing

Are

ao

f S

oil

Co

nta

min

atio

nX

Nav

igat

ion

alA

ids


4 Terms and Definitions

Base Realignmentand Closure(BRAC)

Refers to policy, procedures, authorities, and responsibilities for closingor realigning military installations across the Department of Defense.Includes environmental restoration activities.

Baseline RiskAssessment

An analysis of the potential adverse health effects (current or future)caused by contaminant releases from a site in the absence of any actionsto control or mitigate these releases.

Cancer Risk Incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over alifetime as a result of exposure to a carcinogen.

ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA)

CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, establishes a comprehensiveframework for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up releases ofhazardous substances to the environment. CERCLA authorizes thePresident to take response actions when a release or the threat of a releaseis discovered. Through Executive Order 12580, signed in January 1987,the President directs the Secretary of Defense to implement investigationand cleanup measures in consultation with EPA for releases of hazardoussubstances from facilities under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

DefenseEnvironmentalRestorationAccount (DERA)

A transfer account, established by the Defense Appropriation Act of1984, that funds the Installation Restoration Program for activeinstallations and the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program for formerlyowned or used installations. The account also funds the other goals ofthe Defense Environmental Restoration Program.

DefenseEnvironmentalRestorationProgram (DERP)

A program established by Congress in 1984 to evaluate and clean upcontamination from past DoD activities (Title 10 U.S. Code 2701-2707and 2810.)

Defense SiteEnvironmentalRestorationTracking System(DSERTS)

The Defense Site Environmental Restoration Tracking System (DSERTS)is a personal computer program used by installation and command levelrestoration program managers. It automates collection and reporting ofinformation on sites addressed by the Defense Environmental CleanupPrograms (Installation Restoration and Base Realignment and Closure).

Exposure Point A location of potential contact between a receptor and a chemical orphysical agent.


Feasibility Study(FS)

Based on data collected during the remedial investigation, options forfinal cleanup actions are developed and evaluated in the FS. The FS isdivided into two phases: (1) an initial screening of alternatives, followedby (2) the detailed analysis of alternatives. The detailed analysisconsiders, among other things, cost-effectiveness, short- and long-termeffectiveness, and the overall protection of human health and theenvironment.

Hazard Quotient The ratio of a single substance exposure level over a specified timeperiod (e.g., subchronic) to a reference dose for that substance derivedfrom a similar exposure period.

Interim RemedialAction (IRA)

An early response action that may be identified and implemented at anytime during the study or design phase. IRAs are limited in scope, andthey address only areas or media for which a final remedy will bedeveloped by the RI/FS process. An IRA should be consistent with thefinal remedy for a site.

Media Environmental media subject to relative risk evaluation, namelygroundwater, surface water, sediment, and soils.

Measures of Merit(MOM)

DoD has developed Measures of Merit (MOMs) to define goals,measure how well these goals are achieved, and assess programeffectiveness. MOM #1 sets forth goals for relative risk reduction atsites in DERP over time. MOM #3 tracks the number of sites wherecleanup action has been taken and relative risk has been reduced in oneor more media.

National Oiland HazardousSubstances Pollu–tion ContingencyPlan (NCP)

Located at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 300, the NCP establishesEPA’s response policy and lays out the key response steps forimplementing CERCLA.

No Further Action(NFA)

A no-further-action designation for a site means that response actionsare either complete or not required and no additional actions arewarranted. A no-further-action decision can be made at different pointsin the process if data indicate that risks are within acceptable levels.

Not Required (NR) A site status classification that means that relative risk site evaluation isnot required. This classification applies to sites designated “ResponseComplete” (RC) or all “Remedies in Place” (RIP).

Petroleum, Oil, andLubricants (POL)

For example, jet fuel, gasoline, and their sludges.


PreliminaryAssessment (PA)

A limited-scope investigation designed to distinguish between sites thatpose little or no threat to human health and the environment and sitesthat require further investigation. The PA is typically based oninstallation record searches, visual site inspections, and interviews ofsite personnel. It is required at sites listed on the Federal FacilityHazardous Waste Compliance Docket.

PreliminaryRemediation Goals(PRGs)

Relative risk PRGs are concentration levels set for individual chemicalsthat, for carcinogens, correspond to a specific cancer risk level of 1 in1 million and, for noncarcinogens, correspond to a Hazard Quotientof 1. They are generally selected when Applicable or Relevant andAppropriate Requirements (ARARs) are not available.

RCRA FacilityAssessment (RFA)

The first step in the RCRA corrective action process. The RFA acts as ascreen, first identifying and then eliminating solid waste managementunits (SWMUs), environmental media, or entire facilities from furtherconsideration for corrective action. RFAs are performed as part of theRCRA permitting process.

Receptor A human individual or individuals, ecological population, or sensitiveenvironment subject to, or potentially subject to, the hazard ofcontaminant exposure. Sensitive environments considered as receptorsare listed in Table 2.

Reference Dose(RfD)

An estimated daily exposure level of a contaminant to a humanpopulation below which no adverse noncancer health effects areanticipated.

Relative Risk The grouping of sites in DERP into High, Medium, and Low categoriesbased on an evaluation of site information using three key factors: thecontaminant hazard factor (CHF), the migration pathway factor (MPF),and the receptor factor (RF).

Remedial Action(RA)

Involves the construction, operation, and implementation of the finalcleanup remedy. Long-term RAs require continued monitoring,operation, and maintenance for a number of years.

Remedial ActionOperation (RAO)

A site status classification that applies after all remedies are in place, butbefore a response complete decision is made.

Remedial Design(RD)

Involves the development of the actual design of the selected cleanupremedy, including preparation of all technical drawings andspecifications needed to implement the cleanup action.


RemedialInvestigation (RI)

A field investigation that is more extensive than an SI. Its purpose is tocharacterize the nature and extent of contamination at a site. The RI alsoassesses the risks posed by on-site contamination to human health andthe environment.

Remedies in Place(RIP)

A site status classification that implies that all required removal and/orremedial actions are in place at a site. If a site required a remedial actionfor contaminated groundwater and a second such action forcontaminated soils, both actions would need to be in place (e.g.,operating successfully for groundwater and construction completion forsoil) at the site before making an RIP designation.

Removal Action Taken to respond to a release, or threat of a release, of hazardoussubstances, pollutants, or contaminants so as to prevent, minimize, ormitigate harm to human health or the environment. Such actions may betaken during any phase of the site cleanup.

ResourceConservation andRecovery Act(RCRA)

RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of1984 (HSWA), requires the establishment of a management system forhazardous waste (Subtitle C), non-hazardous solid waste (Subtitle D),and underground storage tanks (Subtitle I). RCRA also providescorrective action authority for cleanup of non-hazardous solid wastemanagement units.

Response Complete(RC)

A “response complete” designation means that a Component deems thatno further action is required at the site with the exception of long-termmonitoring. A RC determination requires that (1) there is no evidencethat contaminants were released at the site, (2) no contaminants otherthan background levels were detected at the site, (3) contaminantsattributable to the site are below action levels used for risk screening,(4) the results of a baseline risk assessment demonstrate that cumulativerisks posed by the site are below established thresholds, or (5) removaland/or remedial actions at a site have been implemented, completed, andare the final action for the site.

RestorationManagementInformationSystem (RMIS)

A DoD database used to track information on the status and progress ofactivities at sites in the DERP. It is used to support the Annual Report toCongress and is linked with DSERTS.


Site A discrete area where contamination has been verified, requiring furtherresponse action. By definition, a site has been or will be entered intoRMIS. For the Formerly Utilized Defense Sites (FUDS) program, a siteis equivalent to a “project” and an installation is equivalent to a “FUDSProperty.” Hence, there may be multiple projects on a single FUDSproperty.

Site Inspection (SI) Performed if the PA recommends further investigation. SI investigationstypically collect waste and environmental samples to determine thehazardous substances present at a site and whether they are beingreleased to the environment.

Slope Factor (SF) A plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of a response perunit intake of a chemical over a lifetime. The slope factor is used toestimate an upper-bound probability of an individual developing canceras a result of a lifetime of exposure to a particular level of a carcinogen.

Source Area where hazardous substances or petroleum products have beendeposited, stored, released, disposed of, or placed.


5 References

Department of the Air Force, Use of Risk-Based Standards for Cleanup of PetroleumContaminated Soil, June 1994.

General Accounting Office, Environmental Cleanup: Too Many High Priority Sites ImpedeDoD’s Program, 3 May 1994.

Goodman, Sherri Wasserman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security),Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,9 November 1993.

Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan, The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-SorbedContaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, 1990.

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Annual Report toCongress for Fiscal Year 1994 for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program,31 March 1995.

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), ManagementGuidance for Execution of the FY94/95 and Development of the FY96 Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program, 14 April 1994. This document is available through the Cleanup ProgramOffice at (703) 697-7475.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater Protection, Guidelines forGroundwater Classification Under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites, Directive9283.1-2, December 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Role ofthe Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, Directive 9355.0-30,April 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, TheHazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, Directive 9345.1-07, Interim Final, November 1992.Section A.4 of this document contains sources of information for identifying sensitiveenvironments listed in Table 2 of this Primer. Copies of this section can be obtained by callingthe Cleanup Program Office at (703) 697-7475 or through the National Technical InformationService at 1-800-553-NTIS.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards; Establishment of NumericCriteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States’ Compliance; Final Rule, 57 FederalRegister 60848, 22 December 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Superfund Chemical Data Matrix - Appendix B, Tables, Directive 9360.4-18-1, June 1994 (asupdated).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals, Second Half,1 September 1995.


6 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

BRAC Base realignment and closureBTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCAS Chemical Abstracts ServiceCHF Contaminant Hazard FactorCHHPM Center for Human Health and Preventative Medicine

DERA Defense Environmental Restoration AccountDERP Defense Environmental Restoration ProgramDLA Defense Logistics AgencyDSERTS Defense Site Environmental Restoration Tracking SystemDoD Department of DefenseDUSD(ES) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security)

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyER-L Environmental Response-Low

FS Feasibility StudyFUDS Formerly Used Defense SitesFY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accounting OfficeGW Groundwater

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary TablesHSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

ID IdentificationIRA Interim Remedial ActionIRIS Integrated Risk Information SystemIRP Installation Restoration Program

LOEL Lowest Observed Effects LevelLTM Long-Term Monitoring

mg/kg Milligrams per kilogramMPF Migration Pathway Factor


NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNFA No Further ActionNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNR Not Required

PA Preliminary AssessmentPAH Polyaromatic HydrocarbonsPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylPCi/kg Picocuries per kilogramPCi/l Picocuries per literPOL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricantsppb Parts per billionppm Parts per millionPRG Preliminary Remediation Goal

RA Removal ActionRAO Remedial Action OperationRAB Restoration Advisory BoardRIP Remedies in PlaceRC Response CompleteRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRD Remedial DesignRF Receptor FactorRFA RCRA Facility AssessmentRfD Reference DoseRI Remedial InvestigationRMIS Restoration Management Information System

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSF Slope FactorSI Site InspectionStd StandardSW Surface Water

TCE TrichloroethyleneTPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

µg/l Micrograms per liter

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer A-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)

APPENDIX A

REVISED

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Worksheet

RE

LA

TIV

E R

ISK

SIT

E E

VA

LU

AT

ION

WO

RK

SH

EE

T

SIT

E1

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

Inst

alla

tion

/Pro

pert

y N

ame

for

FU

DS:

Dat

e E

nter

ed /U

pdat

ed (

day,

mon

th, y

ear)

:

Loc

atio

n (C

ity/

Cou

nty

Stat

e):

Med

ia E

valu

ated

(GW

, SW

, Sed

imen

t, So

il, S

ed E

co, S

oil E

co.):

Site

(N

ame/

DSE

RT

S ID

)/P

roje

ct (

Nam

e/P

roje

ct N

o.)

for

FU

DS:

Pha

se o

f E

xecu

tion

(SI

, RI,

FS,

EE

/CA

, IR

A, R

D/R

A, o

r eq

uiv.

RC

RA

Sta

ge):

Poi

nt o

f C

onta

ct (

Nam

e/P

hone

):A

gree

men

t St

atus

(en

ter

appr

opri

ate

DE

RP

Sit

e co

de):

SIT

E S

UM

MA

RY

(Inc

lude

onl

y th

e ke

y el

emen

ts o

f in

form

atio

n us

ed to

con

duct

the

rela

tive

ris

k si

te e

valu

atio

n. A

ttac

h m

ap v

iew

of

site

if d

esir

ed.)

Bri

ef S

ite

Des

crip

tion

(in

clud

e si

te t

ype,

mat

eria

ls d

ispo

sed

of, d

ates

of

oper

atio

n, a

nd o

ther

rel

evan

t in

form

atio

n):

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f P

athw

ays

(Gro

undw

ater

, Soi

l, Su

rfac

e W

ater

[H

uman

], S

urfa

ce W

ater

[E

colo

gica

l], S

edim

ent

[H

uman

], S

edim

ent

[E

colo

gica

l]):

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f R

ecep

tors

(H

uman

and

Eco

logi

cal)

:

1T

he te

rm S

ite

is d

efin

ed a

s a

disc

rete

are

a fo

r w

hich

sus

pect

ed c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s be

en v

erif

ied

and

requ

ires

fur

ther

res

pons

e ac

tion

. A

Sit

e by

def

init

ion

has

been

, or

wil

lbe

, ent

ered

int

o R

MIS

/DS

ER

TS

. F

or t

he F

UD

S P

rogr

am, “

proj

ects

” eq

uate

s to

sit

es f

or c

urre

nt i

nsta

llat

ions

.

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

2

HA

ZA

RD

FA

CT

OR

1

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

___

__

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)

____

_

1 E

valu

ate

for

hum

an c

onta

min

ants

onl

y2

Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

alM

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

___

__

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

is m

ovin

g or

has

mov

ed a

way

fro

m t

he s

ourc

e ar

eaP

oten

tial

- C

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

), c

ould

mov

ebu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suff

icie

nt to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s th

at th

e po

tent

ial f

orco

ntam

inan

t mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce v

ia th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

lim

ited

(du

e to

geo

logi

cal s

truc

ture

s or

phy

sica

l con

trol

s)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

The

re is

a th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y do

wng

radi

ent o

fth

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is a

cur

rent

sou

rce

of d

rink

ing

wat

er o

r so

urce

of

wat

er f

or o

ther

ben

efic

ial

uses

suc

h as

irri

gati

on/a

gric

ultu

re (

equi

vale

nt to

Cla

ss I

or

IIA

aqu

ifer

)

Pot

enti

al -

The

re is

no

thre

aten

ed w

ater

sup

ply

wel

ldo

wng

radi

ent o

f th

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is c

urre

ntly

or p

oten

tial

ly u

sabl

e fo

r dr

inki

ng w

ater

, irr

igat

ion,

or

agri

cult

ure,

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

I, I

IA, o

r II

B a

quif

er)

Lim

ited

- T

here

is n

o po

tent

iall

y th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y w

ell

dow

ngra

dien

t of

the

sour

ce a

nd th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

not

cons

ider

ed a

pot

enti

al s

ourc

e of

dri

nkin

g w

ater

and

is o

fli

mit

ed b

enef

icia

l use

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

III

A o

r II

IBaq

uife

r, o

r w

here

per

ched

aqu

ifer

exi

sts

only

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

____

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Gro

un

dw

ater

Cat

egor

y(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

SU

RF

AC

E W

AT

ER

/HU

MA

N E

ND

PO

INT

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

FA

CT

OR

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

____

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

alM

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

____

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

____

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Su

rfac

e W

ater

/Hu

man

En

dp

oin

t C

ateg

ory

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

SE

DIM

EN

T/H

UM

AN

EN

DP

OIN

T

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(m

g/kg

)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(m

g/kg

)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

FA

CT

OR

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

____

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

alM

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

____

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

____

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Sed

imen

t/H

um

an E

nd

poi

nt

Cat

egor

y(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

SU

RF

AC

E W

AT

ER

/EC

OL

OG

ICA

L E

ND

PO

INT

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

FA

CT

OR

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

____

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

alM

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

____

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

____

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Su

rfac

e W

ater

/Eco

logi

cal

En

dp

oin

t C

ateg

ory

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

SE

DIM

EN

T/E

CO

LO

GIC

AL

EN

DP

OIN

T

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

unit

sC

ompa

riso

n V

alue

unit

sR

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

FA

CT

OR

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

____

Min

imal

(if

Tot

al <

2)__

___

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

ant h

as m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inan

t has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

ant h

as m

oved

or

can

mov

e

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

____

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Sed

imen

t/E

colo

gica

l E

nd

poi

nt

Cat

egor

y(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

SO

IL*

Con

tam

inan

tC

onta

min

ant

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on (

mg/

kg)

Com

pari

son

Val

ue (

mg/

kg)

Rat

io2

HA

ZA

RD

FA

CT

OR

1

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

___

1 E

valu

ate

for

hum

an c

onta

min

ants

onl

y2

Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

alM

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

___

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

that

cont

amin

atio

n is

pre

sent

at,

is m

ovin

g to

war

d, o

r ha

s m

oved

to a

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re

Pot

enti

al -

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

), c

ould

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

gap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suf

fici

ent t

o m

ake

ade

term

inat

ion

of E

vide

nt o

r C

onfi

ned

Con

fine

d -

Low

pos

sibi

lity

for

con

tam

inat

ion

to b

e pr

esen

t at o

rm

igra

te to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

toco

ntam

inat

ed s

oil

Pot

enti

al -

Pot

enti

al f

or r

ecep

tors

to h

ave

acce

ss to

cont

amin

ated

soi

l

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

toco

ntam

inat

ed s

oil

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

____

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Soi

l C

ateg

ory

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

*Soi

l sam

ples

sho

uld

be f

rom

a d

epth

of

0–6

inch

es. I

f sa

mpl

es a

re n

ot a

vail

able

fro

m th

e 0–

6 in

ch in

terv

al, r

esul

ts f

rom

dep

ths

up to

, but

not

exc

eedi

ng, 2

4 in

ches

can

be

used

.

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer B-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)

APPENDIX B

COMPARISON VALUES FORCONTAMINANT HAZARD FACTOR EVALUATION

APPENDIX B-1

Comparison Values for HumanEndpoint Evaluations

APPENDIX B-2

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for EcologicalEndpoint Evaluations

APPENDIX B-3

Sediment Criteria for EcologicalEndpoint Evaluations

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer B-2 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)


Appendix B-1 -- Page3

APPENDIX B-1

RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUES

The Comparison Values contained in this Appendix were derived from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals, which are updatedsemiannually by Region IX. The Comparison Values presented in this Appendix, unlessotherwise indicated, were derived from Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals [PRGs],Second Half 1995, September 1, 1995. The Region IX values are based upon toxicologicalinformation documented by the EPA in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and HealthEffects and Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) data bases. Other reference sources, asfootnoted, were used if and when Region IX data were not available.

The Comparison Values presented for soils utilize conservative exposure assumptions developedby Region IX for residential scenarios. Comparison Values that are based on non-carcinogenicexposure endpoints (nc) (i.e., references doses, RfDs) are translated directly into the table. Valuesbased on carcinogenic exposure endpoints (ca) are modified to reflect a 10-4 computed risk value.The EPA has determined that a computed risk of 10-4 to 10-6 (i.e., one-in-ten thousand to one-in-one-million) is acceptable, depending on other prevailing circumstances. The Preamble to theNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (55 Federal Register 8716,March 8, 1990) defines the remedial action threshold for carcinogens as 10-4. For the purposesof computing the relative risk, the DOD Workgroup has deemed 10-4 to be adequate. The RegionIX PRG table presents the values correlating to a 10-6 risk. Therefore, all carcinogenic valuespresented in the PRG tables have been multiplied by a factor of 100 to become the Relative RiskComparison Values.

The Comparison Values representing military-unique materials (e.g., explosives, propellants,chemical agent materials, and by-products) have been incorporated into the overall, alphabeticallisting of materials. When Region IX values were not available, the Comparison Values werecalculated using Region IX guidance. The reference doses were obtained from a number ofsources, as footnoted. The toxicological data conducted by the military (or DOD contractors), iscurrently being evaluated to establish environmental clean-up criteria for chemical agents and by-product materials. The criteria are now being reviewed by the Steering Committee for Standards inEmergency Response, Restoration, Remediation, and Demilitarization of Chemical WarfareMaterial. In addition, efforts are ongoing to develop pragmatic exposure assumptions, to replacethe default assumptions generally used in EPA calculations.

Criteria for radionuclides are provided in a separate table at the end of Appendix B-1. They havebeen derived from the EPA-Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Directive9360.4-18-1, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. All levels presented are based on Carcinogenicexposure endpoints; therefore, the values presented by EPA have been multiplied by 100 to reflectthe 10-4 risk Comparison Values (as described above). Representatives of the EPA, Departmentof Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and DOD have been working together to developenvironmental criteria (in picocuries per kilogram [pCi/kg]) to represent the fraction of total annualdosages (in milli-radiation equivalent man per year [mrem/yr]) permitted, per recent regulations andguidance.


Please note that synonyms have been added to Appendix B-1 to facilitate its use. In instanceswhere no Chemical Abstract System (CAS) number was available, a unique identifier has beenassigned to the analyte for database function purposes.

The Relative Risk Comparison Values will be formally updated as part of future Primer revisionsto address new data issued from EPA or other sources. The Relative Risk Comparison Values willbe posted on the Internet through the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and PreventativeMedicine home page.

RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESGeneral Organic/Inorganic Analytes

Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierAcenaphthene 83-32-9 3.6E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncAcenaphthylene 207-08-9 6.1E+02 ca 9.2E+01 caAcephate 30560-19-1 5.1E+03 ca 7.7E+02 caAcetaldehyde c 75-07-0 9.4E+01 ncAcetamide,2-chloro-N- (2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)-(9Cl) 15972-60-8 5.5E+02 ca 8.4E+01 caAcetanilide,2-chloro-2',6'-diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl)- 15972-60-8 5.5E+02 ca 8.4E+01 caAcetic acid, 2-ethoxyethyl ester 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncAcetic acid, ethenyl ester 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncAcetic acid, ethyl ester 141-78-6 5.9E+04 nc 3.3E+04 ncAcetic acid, ethylene ether 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncAcetic acid, vinyl ester 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncAcetochlor 34256-82-1 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncAcetone 67-64-1 2.0E+03 n 6.1E+02 ncAcetone Cyanohydrin 75-86-5 5.2E+01 nc 2.9E+01 ncAcetonitrile 75-05-8 3.9E+02 nc 2.2E+02 ncAcetophenone 98-86-2 4.2E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncAcetoxyethane 141-78-6 5.9E+04 nc 3.3E+04 nc1-Acetoxyethylene 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncAcid, ethylenebis(dithio- manganese salt 12427-38-2 3.2E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncAcid,methyl-,2-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl ester 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncAcifluorfen 50594-66-6 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncAcrolein 107-02-8 1.2E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncAcrylaldehyde 107-02-8 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncAcrylamide 79-06-1 9.8E+00 ca 1.5E+00 caAcrylic Acid 79-10-7 3.2E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncAcrylic acid, ethyl ester c 140-66-2 6.5E+01 ca 2.3E+01 caAcrylic Aldehyde 107-02-8 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncAcrylon 107-13-1 1.3E+01 ca 3.7E+02 caAcrylonitrile 107-13-1 1.3E+01 ca 3.7E+02 caAdamsite a 578-94-9 3.6E+01 ca NA NA2-Aethylamino-4-Isopropylamino-6-Chlor-1,3,5-Triazin 1912-24-9 2.0E+02 ca 3.0E+01 caAlachlor 15972-60-8 5.5E+02 ca 8.4E+01 caAlar 1596-84-5 9.8E+03 nc 5.5E+03 ncAldicarb 116-06-3 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 caAldicarb Sulfone 1646-88-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncAldrin 309-00-2 2.6E+00 ca 4.0E-01 caAlly 5585-64-8 1.6E+04 nc 9.1E+03 ncAllyl Alcohol 107-18-6 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncAllyl Chloride 107-05-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncAllylic Alcohol 107-18-6 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncAlpha, Beta-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 4.4E+01 ca 1.2E+01 ca

Alpha,Alpha'-Dithiodis(Methylthio) Formamide 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncalpha,beta-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 4.4E+01 ca 1.2E+01 caAlpha,Gamma-Butadiene 106-99-0 8.6E-01 ca 1.1E+00 caAlpha-Chloropropylene 107-05-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncAlpha-Chlorotoluene 100-44-7 1.4E+02 ca 6.6E+00 caAluminum 7429-90-5 7.7E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncAluminum Phosphide 20859-73-8 3.1E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncAmdro 67485-29-4 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncAmetryn 834-12-8 5.9E+02 nc 3.3E+02 nc

Appendix B-1 -- Page 5


Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier4-Aminoaniline 106-50-3 1.2E+04 nc 6.9E+03 ncp-Aminoaniline 106-50-3 1.2E+04 nc 6.9E+03 nc4-(4-Aminobenzy)Aniline 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 ca6-Aminocaproic Acid 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncAminocaproic Lactam 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 nc1-Amino-4-Chlorobenzene 106-47-8 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncAminocyclohexane 108-91-8 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 nc3-Amino-2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 133-90-4 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 nc4-Amino-6-(1,1-Dimethyl)-3-(Methylthio)-1,2,4-Triazin-One 21087-64-9 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncm-Aminophenol 591-27-5 4.6E+03 nc 2.6E+03 ncBis(2-Aminophenyl)Methane 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 caBis(p-Aminophenyl)Methane 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 ca4-Aminopyridine 504-24-5 1.3E+00 nc 7.3E-01 nc4-Amino-6-Tert-Butyl-3-(Methlythio)-as-Triazin- 5(4H)-one 21087-64-9 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncAmitraz 33089-61-1 1.6E+02 nc 9.1E+01 ncAmmonia c 7664-41-7 NA NA 1.0E+03 ncAmmonium Sulfamate 7773-06-0 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncAmoben 133-90-4 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 ncAniline 62-53-3 1.9E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncAniline, p-chloro- 106-47-8 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncAniline,N,N-dimethyl- 121-69-7 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncAniline,N-phenyl- 122-39-4 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncAnthracene 120-12-7 1.9E+01 nc 1.8E+03 ncAnthracin 120-12-7 1.9E+01 nc 1.8E+03 ncAntimonious Oxide 1309-64-4 3.1E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncAntimony and compounds 7440-36-0 3.1E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncAntimony Pentoxide 1314-60-9 3.8E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncAntimony Peroxide 1309-64-4 3.1E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncAntimony Potassium Tartrate 28300-74-5 6.9E+01 nc 3.3E+01 ncAntimony Tetroxide 1332-81-6 3.1E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncAntimony Trioxide 1309-64-4 3.1E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncAntimony-Oxide 1309-64-4 3.1E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncApollo 74115-24-5 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncAramite 140-57-8 1.8E+03 ca 2.7E+02 caAroclor 1016 12674-11-2 4.9E+00 nc 2.6E+00 ncAroclor 1254 11097-69-1 1.4E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncAroclor 1336-36-3 6.6E+00 ca 8.7E-01 caArsenic 7440-38-2 2.2E+01 nc 4.5E+00 caArsine a 7784-42-1 3.6E+01 ca NA NAAssure 76578-12-6 5.9E+02 nc 3.3E+02 ncAsulam 3337-71-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncAtrazine 1912-24-9 2.0E+02 ca 3.0E+01 caAvenge 43222-48-6 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncAvenge (Difenzoquat) 43222-48-6 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncAvermectin B1 71751-41-2 2.6E+01 nc 1.5E+01 nc1-Aza-2-Cycloheptanone 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncAzabenzene 110-86-1 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc2-Azacycloheptanone 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 nc2H-azepin-2-one,hexahydro- 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncAzobenzene 103-33-3 4.0E+02 ca 6.1E+01 caBarium 7440-39-3 5.3E+03 nc 2.6E+03 ncBarium Cyanide 542-62-1 7.7E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncBaygon 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncBayleton 43121-43-3 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierBaythroid 68359-37-5 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncBenefin 1861-40-1 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncBenomyl 17804-35-2 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncBentazon 25057-89-0 1.6E+02 nc 9.1E+01 ncBenz(a)Anthracene 56-55-3 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 ca3,4-Benz(e)Acephenanthrylene 205-99-2 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+01 ca1,2-Benzacenaphthene 206-44-0 2.6E+03 ca 1.5E+03 ncBenzaldehyde 100-52-7 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncBenzenamine,2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4- 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 caBenzenamine,4,4'-methylenebis- 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 caBenzene 71-43-2 1.4E+02 ca 3.9E+01 caBenzene Carbaldehyde 100-52-7 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncBenzene Chloride 108-90-7 1.6E+02 nc 3.9E+01 ncBenzene, 1,1'-oxybis(2,3,4,5,6-pentabromo-(9Cl) 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caBenzene, chloro- 108-90-7 1.6E+02 nc 3.9E+01 ncBenzene, hexachloro- 118-74-1 2.8E+01 ca 4.2E+00 caBenzene, methyl- 108-88-3 1.9E+03 nc 7.2E+02 ncBenzene, p-dichloro- 106-46-7 7.4E+02 ca 4.7E+01 caBenzene, 1,2,4-trichloro- 120-82-1 6.2E+02 nc 1.9E+02 ncBenzene, 1,2-(1,8-naphthylene)- 206-44-0 2.6E+03 ca 1.5E+03 ncBenzene, hydrazodi- 122-66-7 5.6E+01 ca 8.4E+00 caBenzenecarbinol 100-51-6 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncBenzenecarbonal 100-52-7 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc1,4-Benzenediamine 106-50-3 1.2E+04 nc 6.9E+03 ncp-Benzenediamine 106-50-3 1.2E+04 nc 6.9E+03 nc1,3-Benzene-dicarbonitrile,2,4,5,6-tetrachloro- 1897-45-6 4.0E+03 ca 6.1E+02 caBenzenedicarboxylate 117-84-0 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Ester 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 ca1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Dimethyl Ester 131-11-3 1.0E+05 nc 3.7E+05 nc1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Dimethyl Ester (9Cl) 120-61-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc1,4-Benzenediol 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncp-Benzenediol 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncBenzenemethanol 100-51-6 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncBenzenemethanol,4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-alpha- 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caBenzenethiol c 108-98-5 7.8E-01 nc 3.7E-01 ncBenzenol 108-95-2 3.9E+04 nc 2.2E+04 nc2,3-Benzfluoranthene 205-99-2 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 caBenzhydrol,4,4'-dichloro-alpha-(trichloromethyl)- 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caBenzidine 92-87-5 1.9E-01 ca 2.9E-02 caBenzo Leather Blacke 1937-37-7 5.2E+00 ca 7.8E-01 caBenzo(a)Pyrene 50-32-8 6.1E+00 ca 9.2E-01 caBenzo(b)Fluoranthene 205-99-2 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 caBenzo(def)Phenanthrene 129-00-0 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncBenzo(j)Fluoranthene 205-82-3 6.1E+01 ca NA NABenzo(jk)Fluorene 206-44-0 2.6E+03 ca 1.5E+03 ncBenzo(k)Fluoranthene 207-08-9 6.1E+02 ca 9.2E+01 caBenzodioxathiepin-3-Oxide 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncBenzoepin 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 nc11,12-Benzofluoranthene 207-08-9 6.1E+02 ca 9.2E+01 ca2,3-Benzofluoranthene 205-99-2 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 ca



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier3,4-Benzofluoranthene 205-99-2 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 ca8,9-Benzofluoranthene 207-08-9 6.1E+02 ca 9.2E+01 caBenzoic Acid 65-85-0 1.0E+05 nc 1.5E+05 nc

Benzoic acid,3-amino-2,5-dichloro- 133-90-4 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 ncBenzoicaldehyde 100-52-7 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncBenzotrichloride 98-07-7 3.4E+00 ca 5.2E-01 caBenzyl Alcohol 100-51-6 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncBenzyl Chloride 100-44-7 1.4E+02 ca 6.6E+00 caBeryllium and compounds 7440-41-7 1.4E+01 ca 1.6E+00 cabeta-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncbeta-Ethoxyethyl acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncBHC 608-73-1 2.5E+01 ca 3.7E+00 caN,N'-Bianiline 122-66-7 5.6E+01 ca 8.4E+00 caBidrin 141-66-2 6.5E+00 nc 3.7E+00 nc2,3,1',8'-Binaphthylene 207-08-9 6.1E+02 ca 9.2E+01 caBiphenthrin (Talstar) 82657-04-3 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 nc1,1-Biphenyl 92-52-4 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncBiphenyl, polychloro- 1336-36-3 6.6E+00 ca 8.7E-01 caBis(4-aminophenyl)methane 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 caBis(p-aminophenyl)methane 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 caBis(beta-chloroethyl) ether 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 caBis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 cabis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide d 505-60-2 2.7E+00 nc 2.6E-01 ncBis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether 39638-32-9 3.9E+02 ca 2.7E+01 caBis(Chloromethyl)Ether 542-88-1 1.4E-02 ca 5.2E-03 caBis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl)Ether 108-60-1 6.3E+02 ca 9.6E+01 ca1,1-Bis(p-Chlorophenol)-2,2,2- Trichloroethanol 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caBis(1-chloro-2-propyl)ether 108-60-1 6.3E+02 ca 9.6E+01 caBis((dimethylamino)carbono-thioyl)disulphide 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncBis(dimethylthiocarbamoyl) disulfide 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncBis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 ca

Bis(p-isocyanoto-phenyl)methane 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 ncBis(pentabromophenyl) ether 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caBisphenol A 80-05-7 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncBivinyl 106-99-0 8.6E-01 ca 1.1E+00 caBoron 7440-42-8 5.9E+03 nc 3.3E+03 ncBromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.4E+02 ca 1.8E+01 caBromoethene 593-60-2 4.5E+01 ca 1.0E+01 caBromoform 75-25-2 5.6E+03 ca 8.5E+02 caBromofume 106-93-4 5.1E-01 ca 7.6E-02 caBromomethane 74-83-9 1.5E+01 nc 8.7E+00 nc4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether c 101-55-3 4.5E+03 nc 2.1E+03 ncBromophos 2104-96-3 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncBromoxynil 1689-84-5 1.3E+03 nc 1.8E+02 ncBromoxynil Octanoate 1689-99-2 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncButadiene 106-99-0 8.6E-01 ca 1.1E+00 ca1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 8.6E-01 ca 1.1E+00 ca1,3-Butadiene,2-chloro- 126-99-8 6.3E+00 nc 1.4E+01 ncButane, 1-chloro- 109-69-3 1.0E+03 sat nc 2.4E+03 nc1-Butanol 71-36-3 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc2-Butenal, (E)- 123-73-9 1.6E+00 nc 5.9E-01 ca2-Butenal 123-73-9 1.6E+00 ca 5.9E-01 ca1,2-Butene Oxide 106-88-7 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1-Butene Oxide 106-88-7 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncButene, 1,2-epoxy- 106-88-7 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 nc2-Butoxy Ethanol 111-76-2 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncButoxyethanol 111-76-2 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 nc2-Butoxy-1-Ethanol 111-76-2 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncn-Butoxyethanol 111-76-2 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncButyl Benzyl Phthalate 85-68-7 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncButyl Cellosolve 111-76-2 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncButyl Chloride 109-69-3 1.0E+03 sat nc 2.4E+03 ncn-Butyl chloride 109-69-3 1.0E+03 sat nc 2.4E+03 ncButylate 2008-41-5 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncsec-Butylbenzene c 135-98-8 7.8E+02 nc 6.1E+01 nctert-Butylbenzene c 104-51-8 7.8E+02 nc 6.1E+01 ncButyl-3-(Methylthio)-1,2,4-Triazin-5-One 21087-64-9 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncButylphthalyl Butylglycolate 85-70-1 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncCacodylic Acid 75-60-5 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncCadmium and compounds 7440-43-9 3.8E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncCalcium Cyanide 592-01-8 3.1E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncCaprolactam 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncCaptafol 2425-06-1 5.2E+03 ca 7.8E+02 caCaptan 133-06-2 1.3E+04 ca 1.9E+03 caCarbamic acid, methyl-,o-isopropoxyphenyl ester 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncCarbamic acid,diisobutylthio-, s-ethyl ester 2008-41-5 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncCarbamic acid,methyl-,2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl 1563-66-2 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncCarbaryl 63-25-2 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncCarbazole 86-74-8 2.2E+03 ca 3.4E+02 caCarbitol 111-90-0 1.1E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncCarbitol Cellosolve 111-90-0 1.1E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncCarbofuran 1563-66-2 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncCarbon Dichloride 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 caCarbon Disulfide 75-15-0 1.6E+01 nc 2.1E+01 ncCarbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 4.7E+01 ca 1.7E+01 caCarbosulfan 55285-14-8 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncCarboxin 5234-68-4 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncCellosolve Acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncCellosolve 110-80-5 2.6E+04 nc 1.5E+04 ncChloral 302-17-0 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncChlorallylene 107-05-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncChloramben 133-90-4 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 ncChlorambene 133-90-4 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 ncChloramide 10599-90-3 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncChloramine 10599-90-3 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncChloranil 118-75-2 1.1E+02 ca 1.7E+01 caChlordane 57-74-9 3.4E+01 ca 5.2E+00 caChlordane, alpha- (2) 57-74-9 3.4E+01 ca 5.2E+00 caChlordane, gamma- 57-74-9 3.4E+01 ca 5.2E+00 caChlorimuron-Ethyl 90982-32-4 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncChlorinated Biphenyl 1336-36-3 6.6E+00 ca 8.7E-01 caChlorine 7782-50-5 7.7E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncChloro-1,3-butadiene, 2- 126-99-8 6.3E+00 nc 1.4E+01 ncChloro-2,2-methylaniline hydrochloride, 4- 3165-93-3 9.7E+01 ca 1.5E+01 caChloro-2-methylaniline, 4- 95-69-2 7.7E+01 ca 1.2E+01 ca



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1-Chloro-4-Nitrobenzene 95-69-2 7.7E+01 ca 1.2E+01 ca4-Chloro-Alpha-(4-Chlorophenyl)-Alpha-Benzenemethanol 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caChloroacetaldehyde c 107-20-0 5.4E+02 nc 2.5E+02 ncChloroacetic Acid 79-11-8 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc2-Chloroacetophenone 532-27-4 7.5E-02 nc 5.2E-02 nc4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncp-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 nc4-Chlorobenzenamine 106-47-8 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncChlorobenzene 108-90-7 1.6E+02 nc 3.9E+01 ncp-Chlorobenzene 106-46-7 7.4E+02 ca 4.7E+01 caChlorobenzilate 510-15-6 1.6E+02 ca 2.5E+01 cap-Chlorobenzoic Acid 74-11-3 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncChlorobenzol 108-90-7 1.6E+02 nc 3.9E+01 nc4-Chlorobenzotrifluoride 98-56-6 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc2-Chloro-4,6-Bis(Ethylamino)-s-Triazine 122-34-9 3.7E+02 ca 5.6E+01 ca1-Chloro-3,5-Bisethylamino-2,4,6- Triazine 122-34-9 3.7E+02 ca 5.6E+01 caChlorobutadiene 126-99-8 6.3E+00 nc 1.4E+01 nc2-Chloro-1,3-Butadiene 126-99-8 6.3E+00 nc 1.4E+01 nc1-Chlorobutane 109-69-3 1.0E+03 sat nc 2.4E+03 ncChlorodibromomethane 124-48-1 5.3E+02 ca 1.0E+02 ca2-Chloro-N-(2,6-Diethyl)Phenyl-N-Methoxymethylacetamide 15972-60-8 5.5E+02 ca 8.4E+02 ca6-Chloro-N,N'-Diethyl-1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-Diamine 122-34-9 3.7E+02 ca 5.6E+01 ca2-Chloro-2,6'-Diethyl-N-(Methoxy-methyl)Acetanilide 15972-60-8 5.5E+02 ca 8.4E+02 caChlorodifluoroethane 75-45-6 5.7E+02 sat nc 8.7E+04 nc1-Chloro-1,1-Difluoroethane 75-45-6 5.7E+02 sat nc 8.7E+04 nc1-Chloro-2,3-Epoxypropane 106-89-8 1.2E+01 nc 2.0E+00 nc3-Chloro-1,2-Epoxypropane 106-89-8 1.2E+01 nc 2.0E+00 ncChloroethane 75-00-3 3.1E+04 nc 8.6E+03 nc(2-Chloroethoxy)ethene c 110-75-8 2.0E+03 nc 1.5E+02 nc2-Chloroethyl Ether 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 ca2-Chloroethyl Phosphonic Acid 16672-87-0 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether c 110-75-8 2.0E+03 nc 1.5E+02 ncBis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 caBis(beta-Chloroethyl)Ether 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 caChloroform 67-66-3 5.3E+01 ca 1.6E+01 caChloromethane 74-87-6 2.0E+02 ca 1.5E+02 ca2-(Chloromethyl)Oxirane 106-89-8 1.2E+01 nc 2.0E+00 nc4-Chloro-2-Methylaniline Hydrochloride 3165-93-3 9.7E+01 ca 1.5E+01 ca4-Chloro-2-Methylaniline 95-69-2 7.7E+01 ca 1.2E+01 caChloromethylbenzene 100-44-7 1.4E+02 ca 6.6E+00 cabeta-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 nc4-Chloro-1-Nitrobenzene 91-58-7 5.2E+03 ca 2.9E+03 nco-Chloronitrobenzene 88-73-3 1.8E+03 ca 2.7E+02 cap-Chloronitrobenzene 100-00-5 2.5E+03 ca 3.7E+02 ca1-Chloro-4-Nitrobenzene 100-00-5 2.5E+03 ca 3.7E+02 ca2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncp-Chlorophenyl chloride 106-46-7 7.4E+02 ca 4.7E+01 ca4-Chlorophenylamine 106-47-8 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncChlorophenylmethane 100-44-7 1.4E+02 ca 6.6E+00 caChloropicrin a 76-06-2 1.6E+02 nc NA NAChloroprene 126-99-8 6.3E+00 nc 1.4E+01 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier3-Chloroprene 107-05-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncBeta-Chloroprene 126-99-8 6.3E+00 nc 1.4E+01 nc2-Chloropropane 75-29-6 3.5E+02 sat nc 1.7E+02 nc3-Chloropropene 107-05-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncBis(1-Chloro-2-Propyl)Ether 108-60-1 6.3E+02 ca 9.6E+01 ca3-Chloro-1,2-Propylene Oxide 106-89-8 1.2E+01 nc 2.0E+00 nc3-Chloropropylene 107-05-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncChlorothanlonil 1897-45-6 4.0E+03 ca 6.1E+02 cao-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 3.4E+02 nc 1.2E+02 ncChlorpropham 101-21-3 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncChlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncChlorpyrifos-Methyl 5598-13-0 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncChlorsulfuron 64902-72-3 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncChlorthiophos 602-38-56-4 5.2E+01 nc 2.9E+01 ncChrome leather brilliant blacker 1937-37-7 5.2E+00 ca 7.8E-01 caChromium 7440-47-3 3.0E+03 ca 1.8E+02 ncChrysene 218-01-9 2.4E+03 ca 9.2E+02 cacis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 5.9E+01 nc 6.1E+01 nccis-Butenedioic Anhydride 108-31-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nccis-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 5.9E+01 nc 6.1E+01 ncColbalt 7440-48-4 4.6E+03 nc 2.2E+03 ncCopper and compounds 7440-48-4 2.8E+03 nc 1.4E+03 ncCopper Cyanide 544-92-3 3.8E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncCounter Solid Insecticide 13071-79-9 1.6E+00 nc 9.1E-01 nc2-Cresol 95-48-7 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc3-Cresol 108-39-4 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc4-Cresol 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncm-Cresol 108-39-4 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nco-Cresol 95-48-7 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncp-Cresol 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncp-Cresylic acid 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncCrotonal 123-73-9 1.6E+00 ca 5.9E-01 caCrotonaldehyde 123-73-9 1.2E+00 ca 5.9E-01 caCrotonaldehyde, (E)- 123-73-9 1.2E+00 ca 5.9E-01 caCumene 98-82-8 4.9E+01 sat nc 1.9E+01 ncCyanazine 21725-46-2 5.3E+01 ca 8.0E+00 caCyanide (free) 57-12-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncCyanide of potassium 151-50-8 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncCyanide of sodium 143-33-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 nc2-Cyanoethanol 109-78-4 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc2-Cyanoethyl Alcohol 109-78-4 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncCyanogen 460-19-5 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncCyanogen Bromide 506-68-3 5.9E+03 nc 3.3E+03 ncCyanogen Chloride 506-77-4 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncCyanopropene-1 126-98-7 1.3E+00 nc 1.0E+00 ncCyclohexanamine 108-91-8 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncCyclohexane, methyl- 108-87-2 5.6E+04 nc 3.1E+04 ncCyclohexanone 108-94-1 1.0E+05 max 1.8E+05 ncCyclohexlamine 108-91-8 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncCyclohexyl Amine 108-91-8 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncCyclohexyl Ketone 108-94-1 1.0E+05 max 1.8E+05 ncCyclohexylamine 108-91-8 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncCyclohexylmethane 108-87-2 5.6E+04 nc 3.1E+04 ncCyclonite 121-82-4 4.0E+02 ca 6.1E+01 ca1,8-Cyclopenta(de)Naphthalene 207-08-9 6.1E+02 ca 9.2E+01 caCyhalothrin/Karate 68085-85-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncCypermethrin 52315-07-8 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierCyromazine 66215-27-8 4.9E+02 nc 2.7E+02 ncDaconil 2787 1897-45-6 4.0E+03 ca 6.1E+02 caDacthal 1861-32-1 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncDalapon 75-99-0 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncDanitol 39515-41-8 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 nc2,4-DCP 120-83-2 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncDDD 72-54-8 1.9E+02 ca 2.8E+01 ca4,4-DDD 72-54-8 1.9E+02 ca 2.8E+01 caDDE 72-55-9 1.3E+02 ca 2.0E+01 ca4,4-DDE 72-55-9 1.3E+02 ca 2.0E+01 caDDT 50-29-3 1.3E+02 ca 2.0E+01 ca4,4-DDT 50-29-3 1.3E+02 ca 2.0E+01 caDecabromobiphenyl Ether 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caDecabromodiphenyl Ether 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caDecabromodiphenyl Oxide 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caDEHP 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caDemeton 8065-48-3 2.6E+00 nc 1.5E+00 ncDi-(p-chlorophenyl) trichloromethylcarbinol 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caDiallate 2303-16-4 7.3E+02 ca 1.1E+02 cap-Diaminobenzene 106-50-3 1.2E+04 nc 6.9E+03 nc1,2-Diaminoethane 107-15-3 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncDiazinon 333-41-5 5.9E+01 nc 3.3E+01 ncDibenz[ah]anthracene 53-70-3 6.1E+00 ca 9.2E-01 caDibenz(a,h)Acridine j RRSE-001 6.1E+01 ca NA NADibenz(a,j)Acridine 224-42-0 6.1E+00 ca 9.2E-01 caDibenz(a,h)Anthracene 53-70-3 6.1E+00 ca 9.2E-01 caDibenzo(b,e)(1,4)dioxin,2,3,7,8-tetrachloro- 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 caDibenzo-p-dioxin,2,3,7,8-tetrachloro- 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 ca7H-Dibenzo(c,g)Carbazole RRSE-002 6.1E+01 ca NA NADibenzo(b,jk)Fluorene 207-08-9 6.1E+02 ca 9.2E+01 caDibenzofuran 132-64-9 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 nc1,2,5,6-Dibenzonaphthalene 218-01-9 2.4E+01 ca 9.2E+02 caDibenzo(a,e)Pyrene RRSE-003 6.1E+00 ca NA NADibenzo(a,h)Pyrene RRSE-004 6.1E+00 ca NA NADibenzo(a,i)Pyrene RRSE-005 6.1E-01 ca NA NADibenzo(a,l)Pyrene RRSE-006 6.1E-01 ca NA NA1,4-Dibromobenzene 106-37-6 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncDibromochloromethane 124-48-1 5.3E+02 ca 1.0E+02 ca1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 96-12-8 3.2E+01 ca 4.8E+00 caDibromoethane 106-93-4 5.1E-01 ca 7.6E-02 ca1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 5.1E-01 ca 7.6E-02 caDibutyl Phthalate 84-74-2 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncDicamba 1918-00-9 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncDichloro-2-butene, 1,4- 764-41-0 7.6E-01 ca 1.2E-01 ca2,5-Dichloro-3-Aminobenzoic Acid 133-90-4 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 nc4,4'-Dichloro-alpha-(Trichloro-methyl)Benzydrol 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 ca1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p) 106-46-7 7.4E+02 ca 4.7E+01 ca1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 2.3E+03 nc 3.7E+02 nc1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 2.8E+03 nc NA NA1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 7.4E+02 ca 4.7E+01 cap-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 7.4E+02 ca 4.7E+01 ca3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 9.9E+01 ca 1.5E+01 ca3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 9.9E+01 ca 1.5E+01 ca



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene 764-41-0 7.6E-01 ca 1.2E-01 caDichloro(2-Chlorovinyl)arsine e 541-25-3 3.9E+01 nc 3.7E+00 ncDichlorodiethyl Ether 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 caDichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 1.1E+02 nc 3.9E+02 ncDichlorodiisopropyl Ether 108-60-1 6.3E+02 ca 9.6E+01 ca1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 8.4E+02 nc 8.1E+02 nc1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 107-06-2 4.4E+01 ca 1.2E+01 ca2,2'-Dichloroethyl Ether 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 ca1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis) 156-59-2 5.9E+01 nc 6.1E+01 nc1,2-Dichloroethylene (Total) 540-59-0 7.5E+01 nc 5.5E+01 nc1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans) 156-60-5 1.7E+02 nc 1.2E+02 nc1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-35-4 3.8E+00 ca 4.6E+00 ca1,2-Dichloroethylene (mixture) 540-59-0 7.5E+01 nc 5.5E+01 nc1,2-Dichloroethylene, (z)- 156-59-2 5.9E+01 nc 6.1E+01 nc2,4-Dichlorohydroxybenzene 120-83-2 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 nc2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 nc4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)Butyric Acid (2,4-DB) 94-82-6 5.2E+02 nc 2.9E+02 nc2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) 94-75-7 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncDi-(p-Chlorophenyl)-Trichloromethyl-carbinol 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caDichloropropane 78-87-5 6.8E+01 ca 1.6E+01 ca1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 6.8E+01 ca 1.6E+01 ca2,3-Dichloropropanol 616-23-9 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncDichloropropene 542-75-6 5.1E+01 ca 8.1E+00 ca1,3-Dichloropropene 542-75-6 5.1E+01 ca 8.1E+00 caDichlorvos 62-73-7 1.5E+02 ca 2.3E+01 caDicofol 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caDicyclopentadiene 77-73-6 NA NA 4.2E-01 ncDieldrin 60-57-1 2.8E+00 ca 4.2E-01 caDiethyl mercaptosuccinate s-ester with O,O- 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncO,O-Diethyl Mercaptosuccinate 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncDiethyl Phthalate 84-66-2 5.2E+04 nc 2.9E+04 nc(Diethylamino)Ethane 121-44-8 1.0E+01 nc 1.2E+01 nc1,4-Diethylene Dioxide 123-91-1 1.8E+03 ca 1.0E+02 caDiethylene Glycol Ethyl Ether 111-90-0 1.1E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncDiethylene Glycol, Monobutyl Ether 112-34-5 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncDiethylene Glycol, Monoethyl Ether 111-90-0 1.0E+05 nc 7.3E+04 nc1,4-Diethyleneoxide 123-91-1 1.8E+03 ca 1.0E+02 caN,N-Diethylethanamine 121-44-8 1.0E+01 nc 1.2E+01 ncDiethylformamide 617-84-5 7.2E+02 nc 4.0E+02 ncDi(2-Ethylhexyl)Adipate 103-23-1 3.7E+02 nc 5.6E+01 ncDi(2-Ethylhexyl)Orthophthalate 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caDi(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caDiethylstilbestrol 56-53-1 9.5E-03 ca 1.4E-03 caDifenzoquat (Avenge) 43222-48-6 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncDiflubenzuron 35367-38-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc1,1-Difluoroethane 75-37-6 NA NA 6.9E+04 ncDihydro-2,2-Dimethyl-7- Benzofuranyl Ester 1563-66-2 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncDihydroxybenzene 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 nc1,4-Dihydroxybenzene 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncp-Dihydroxybenzene 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierDiisobutylthiocarbamic Acid s-Ethyl Ester 2008-41-5 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc4,4'-Diisocyanatodiphenyl-methane 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 ncDiisopropyl Methylphosphonate (DIMP) 1445-75-6 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncS-2-Diisopropylaminoethyl O-ethyl methylphosphonothioate i 50782-69-9 2.7E-01 nc 2.6E-02 ncDimethipin 55290-64-7 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncDimethoate 60-51-5 1.3E+01 nc 7.3E+00 nc3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine c 119-90-4 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caDimethyl 1,4-benzenedicarboxylate 120-61-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncDimethyl Dithiophosphate 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncDimethyl Phthalate 131-11-3 1.0E+05 nc 3.7E+05 ncDimethyl-p-Phthalate 120-61-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncDimethyl Terephthalate 120-61-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncDimethylamdioethoxy-phosphoryl cyanide f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncDimethylamine 124-40-3 6.2E-02 nc 3.5E-02 ncBis((Dimethylamino) Carbonothiol) Disulphide 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc(Dimethylamino)benzene 121-69-7 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncDimethylaminoethoxy-cyanophosphine oxide f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncBis(p-Dimethylaminophenyl) Methane 101-61-1 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 caDimethylaniline 121-69-7 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc

2,4-Dimethylaniline Hydrochloride 21436-96-4 7.7E+01 ca 1.2E+01 ca2,4-Dimethylaniline 95-68-1 5.9E+01 ca 9.0E+00 caN-N-Dimethylaniline 121-69-7 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc7,12-Dimethylbenzanthracene 57-97-6 6.1E-01 ca NA NADimethylbenzene 1330-20-7 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 nc1,3-Dimethylbenzene 108-38-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 nc1,4-Dimethylbenzene 106-42-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 5.2E+02 ncc

p-Dimethylbenzene 106-42-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 5.2E+02 ncc

N,N-Dimethylbenzeneamine 121-69-7 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncDimethyl-1,4-Benzene dicarboxylate 120-61-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 119-93-7 4.8E+00 ca 7.3E-01 ca

(((1,1-Dimethylethyl)Thio)Methyl) o,o-Diethyl Ester 13071-79-9 1.6E+00 nc 9.1E-01 ncN,N-Dimethylformamide 68-12-2 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc1,1-Dimethylhydrazine 57-14-7 1.7E+01 ca 2.6E+00 ca1,2-Dimethylhydrazine 540-73-8 1.2E+00 ca 1.8E-01 ca2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc2,6-Dimethylphenol 576-26-1 3.9E+01 nc 2.2E+01 nc3,4-Dimethylphenol 95-65--8 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc4,6-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncDimethylphenylamine 121-69-7 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncDimethylphosphoramido-cyanidic acid, ethyl ester f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncBis(Dimethylthiocarbamoyl) Disulfide 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc1,1-Dimethyl-3-(3-Trifluoromethyl- phenyl)Urea 2164-17-2 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1,1-Dimethyl-3-(alpha, alpha, alpha-Trifluoro-m-Tolyl)Urea 2164-17-2 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncDinitotoluene 121-14-2 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc1,2-Dinitrobenzene 528-29-0 2.6E+01 nc 1.5E+01 nc1,3-Dinitrobenzene 99-65-0 6.5E+00 nc 3.7E+00 nc1,4-Dinitrobenzene 100-25-4 2.6E+01 nc 1.5E+01 nc4,6-Dinitro-o-cyclohexyl Phenol 131-89-5 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc2,6-Dinitro-N,N-Dipropyl-4-Benzenamine 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 ca2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc1,6-Dinitropyrene RRSE-007 2.8E-01 ca NA NA1,8-Dinitropyrene RRSE-008 6.1E-01 ca NA NADinitrotoluene Mixture 25321-14-6 6.5E-01 ca 9.9E-02 ca2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 6.5E+01 ca 3.7E+01 ca2,4-Dinitrotouol 121-14-2 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncDinitro-4-Trifluoromethylaniline 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 caDinoseb 88-85-7 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncDi-n-Octyl Phthalate 117-84-0 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncDioxane 123-91-1 1.8E+03 ca 1.0E+02 ca1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 1.4E+03 ca 1.0E+02 cap-Dioxane 123-91-1 1.4E+03 ca 1.0E+02 caDioxin 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 ca1,4-Dioxyacyclohexane 123-91-1 1.4E+03 ca 1.0E+02 caDiphenamid 957-51-7 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncDiphenyl Fast Brown 16071-86-6 4.8E+00 ca 7.2E-01 ca1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine 122-66-7 5.6E+01 ca 8.4E+00 ca4,4'-Diphenyl Methane Diisocyante 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 ncDiphenylamine 122-39-4 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncN,N-Diphenylamine 122-39-4 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncN,N'-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 5.6E+01 ca 8.4E+00 ca1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 5.6E+01 ca 8.4E+00 caDipropanoate (9Cl) 123-73-9 1.6E+00 ca 5.9E-01 caDipropyl-4-(Trifluoromethyl) Benzenamine 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 caDiquat 85-00-7 1.4E+02 nc 8.0E+01 ncDirect Black 38 1937-37-7 5.2E+00 ca 7.8E-01 caDirect black N 1937-37-7 5.2E+00 ca 7.8E-01 caDirect Blue 6 2602-46-2 5.5E+00 ca 8.3E-01 caDirect Brown 95 16071-86-6 4.8E+00 ca 7.3E-01 caDisulfide,bis(dimethylthio carbamoyl) 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncDisulfoton 298-04-4 2.6E+00 nc 1.5E+00 nc1,4-Dithiane 505-29-3 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncDiuron 330-54-1 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncDivinylene Oxide 110-00-9 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncDodine 2439-10-3 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncDual (Metolaclor) 51218-45-2 9.8E+03 nc 5.5E+03 ncEDC 107-06-2 4.4E+01 ca 1.2E+01 caEndocide 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncEndosol 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncEndosulfan 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncEndothall 145-73-3 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncEndrin 72-20-8 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncEpichlorohydrin 106-89-8 8.6E+00 nc 2.0E+00 ncEpoxybutane 106-88-7 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 nc1,2-Epoxybutane 106-88-7 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1,2-Epoxy-3-Chloropropane 106-89-8 8.6E+00 nc 2.0E+00 nc2,3-Epoxypropylchloride 106-89-8 8.6E+00 nc 2.0E+00 ncEPTC (S-Ethyl Dipropylthio-carbamate) 759-94-4 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 nc1,2-Ethandiol 107-21-1 1.3E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncEthane, 1,2-Dibromo- 106-93-4 5.1E-01 ca 7.6E-02 caEthane, 1,2-Dichloro- 107-06-2 4.4E+01 ca 1.2E+01 ca1,2-Ethanediamine 107-15-3 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc

1,2-Ethanediylbis (Carbamodithioato)2-Manganese 12477-38-2 3.2E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc1,2-Ethanediylbis (carbamodithioato) (2-)-manganese 12427-38-2 3.2E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc

1,2-Ethanediyl-biscarbamodithioc Acid, Manganese Complex 12477-38-2 3.2E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncEthanoic acid, ethenyl ester 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncEthanol, 2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)- 111-90-0 1.0E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncEthanol, 2-butoxy- 111-76-2 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncEthanol, 2-ethoxy- 110-80-5 2.6E+04 nc 1.5E+04 ncEthanol, 2-ethoxy-,acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncEthanol, 2-methoxy- 109-86-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncEthanol, 2-methoxy-,acetate 110-49-6 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncEthanol,2,2,2-trichloro-1,1- bis(p-chlorophenyl)- 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 caEthenyl Ester Acetic Acid 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncEthenylbenzene 100-42-5 2.2E+03 sat nc 1.6E+03 ncEthephon (2-Chloroethyl Phosphonic Acid) 16672-87-0 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncEther, 2-chloroethyl vinyl c 110-75-8 2.0E+03 nc 1.5E+02 ncEther,bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) 108-60-1 6.3E+02 ca 9.6E+01 caEther,bis(pentabromophenyl) 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caEther,tert-butyl methyl 1634-04-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncEthion 563-12-2 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 nc2-Ethoxyethanol Acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc2-Ethoxyethanol 110-80-5 2.6E+04 nc 1.5E+04 nc2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)Ethanol 111-90-0 1.0E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncEthoxyethyl acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncbeta-Ethoxyethyl Acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc2-Ethoxyethyl Ester Acetic Acid 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncEthyl 2-propenoate c 140-66-2 6.5E+01 ca 2.3E+01 caEthyl Acetate 141-78-6 5.9E+04 nc 3.3E+04 ncEthyl Acrylate 140-88-5 4.6E+01 ca 2.3E+01 caEthyl benzene 100-41-4 6.9E+02 sat nc 1.3E+03 ncEthyl carbitol 111-90-0 1.0E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncEthyl cellosolve 110-80-5 2.6E+04 nc 1.5E+04 ncEthyl Chloride 75-00-3 1.1E+03 nc 7.1E+02 ncO-Ethyl S-(2-diisopropyl-aminoethyl) methylthiolphosphonoate i 50782-69-9 2.7E-01 nc 2.6E-02 ncEthyl dimethylamido-cyanophosphate f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncEthyl dimethyl-phosphoramidocyanidate f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncS-Ethyl Dipropylthiocarbamate 759-94-4 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncEthyl Ester Acetic Acid 141-78-6 5.9E+04 nc 3.3E+04 ncEthyl Ester Acrylic Acid c 140-66-2 6.5E+01 ca 2.3E+01 caEthyl Ester-2-Propenoic Acid c 140-66-2 6.5E+01 ca 2.3E+01 ca



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierEthyl ethanoate 141-78-6 5.9E+04 nc 3.3E+04 ncEthyl Ether 60-29-7 3.8E+03 sat 1.2E+03 ncEthyl Methacrylate 97-63-2 3.8E+02 sat 5.5E+02 ncEthyl N,N-dimethyl-aminocyanophosphate f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 nc

Ethyl N,N-isobutyl-thiocarbamate 2008-41-5 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncEthylamineisopropylamine-s-triazine 1912-24-9 2.0E+02 ca 3.0E+01 caEthylbenzene 100-41-4 6.9E+02 sat nc 1.3E+03 ncEthylbenzol 100-41-4 6.9E+02 sat nc 1.3E+03 ncO-Ethyl S-(2-diispropylaminoethyl) methylphosphonothioate i 50782-69-9 2.7E-01 nc 2.6E-02 ncEthyl N,N-dimethyl-phosphoramidocyanidate f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncEthylene Cyanohydrin 109-78-4 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncEthylene Diamine 107-15-3 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncEthylene Dibromide 106-93-4 5.1E-01 ca 7.6E-02 caEthylene Dichloride 107-06-2 4.4E+01 ca 1.2E+01 ca1,2-Ethylene Dichloride 107-06-2 4.4E+01 ca 1.2E+01 caEthylene Ester Acetic Acid 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncEthylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.3E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncEthylene glycol ethyl ether 110-80-5 2.6E+04 nc 1.5E+04 ncEthylene glycol methyl ether 109-86-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncEthylene glycol methyl ether acetate 110-49-6 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc

Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether 110-80-5 2.6E+04 nc 1.5E+04 ncEthylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc

Ethylene Glycol, Monobutyl Ether 111-76-2 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 nc

Ethylene glycol, dipropionate(8Cl) 123-73-9 1.6E+00 ca 5.9E-01 caEthylene Oxide 75-21-8 1.2E+01 ca 2.4E+00 caEthylene tetrachloride 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 caEthylene Thiourea (ETU) 96-45-7 7.4E+01 ca 1.1E+01 caEthylene, tetrachloro- 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 caEthylene,1,2-dichloro-, (z) 156-59-2 5.9E+01 nc 6.1E+01 ncEthylenebis(dithiocarbamic acid),manganese salt 12427-38-2 3.2E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc1,2-Ethylenediamine 107-15-3 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc1,2-Ethylenediylbis (Caromodithioato)Manganese 12427-38-2 3.2E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncEthylglycol acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caBis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caEthyl p-Nitrophenyl Phenylphosphorothioate 2104-64-5 6.5E-01 nc 3.7E-01 ncEthylnitrosourea c 759-73-9 4.6E-01 ca 4.8E-02 caEthyloxirane 106-88-7 3.7E+02 nc 2.1E+02 ncEthylphosphorodimethylamido- cyanidate f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncEthylphthalyl Ethyl Glycolate 84-72-0 1.0E+05 max 1.1E+05 ncETU 96-45-7 7.4E+01 ca 1.1E+01 caExpress 101200-48-0 5.2E+02 nc 2.9E+02 ncFenamiphos 22224-92-6 1.6E+01 nc 9.1E+00 ncFluometuron 2164-17-2 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierFluoranthene 206-44-0 2.6E+03 ca 1.5E+03 ncFluorene 86-73-7 3.0E+02 nc 2.4E+02 ncFluoride 7782-41-4 3.9E+03 nc 2.2E+03 ncFluoridone 59756-60-4 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncFlurprimidol 56425-91-3 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncFlutolanil 66332-96-5 3.9E+03 nc 2.2E+03 ncFluvalinate 69409-94-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncFolpet 133-07-3 1.3E+04 ca 1.9E+03 caFomesafen 72178-02-0 2.3E+02 ca 3.5E+01 caFonofos 944-22-9 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncFormaldehyde 50-00-0 9.8E+03 ca 5.5E+03 caFormic Acid 64-18-6 1.0E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncFosetyl-al 39148-24-8 1.0E+05 max 1.1E+05 ncFree cyanide 57-12-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncFuran 110-00-9 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc2,5-Furandione 108-31-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncFurazolidone 67-45-8 1.2E+01 ca 1.8E+00 caFurfural 98-01-1 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncFurium 531-82-8 8.9E-01 ca 1.3E-01 caFurmecyclox 60568-05-0 1.5E+03 ca 2.2E+02 caGA f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncGB g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncGD h 96-64-0 2.0E+00 nc 1.8E-01 ncGlufosinate-Ammonium 77182-82-2 2.6E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncGlycidaldehyde 765-34-4 2.6E+01 nc 1.5E+01 ncGlycol monomethyl ether 109-86-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc

Glycol monomethyl ether acetate 110-49-6 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncGlycolethyl ether acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncGlyphosate 1071-83-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncHaloxyfop-Methyl 69806-40-2 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncHarmony 79277-27-3 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncHCH (alpha) 319-84-6 7.1E+00 ca 1.1E+00 caHCH (beta) 319-85-7 2.5E+01 ca 1.1E+00 caHCH (gamma) Lindane 58-89-9 3.4E+01 ca 5.2E+00 caHCH -technical 58-89-9 3.4E+01 ca 5.2E+00 caHD d 505-60-2 2.7E+00 nc 2.6E-01 ncHeptachlor 76-44-8 9.9E+00 ca 1.5E+00 caHeptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 4.9E+00 ca 7.4E-01 ncHexabromobenzene 87-82-1 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncHexachloro-5-norbornene-2,3-dimethanol cyclic sulfite 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncHexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 2.8E+01 ca 4.2E+00 caHexachlorobicyclo(2.2.1)-2-heptene-5,6-bisoxymethylene sulfite 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncHexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 5.7E+02 ca 8.6E+01 ca1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH) -Technical 608-73-1 2.5E+01 ca 3.7E+00 ca1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Alpha 319-84-6 7.1E+00 ca 1.1E+00 ca1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Beta 319-85-7 2.5E+01 ca 3.7E+00 ca

1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Gamma - Lindane 58-89-9 3.4E+01 ca 5.2E+00 caHexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 4.5E+02 nc 2.6E+02 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzeno- p-Dioxin 19408-74-3 7.2E-03 ca 1.1E-03 ca

Hexachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (Mix) 19408-74-3 7.2E-03 ca 1.1E-03 caHexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin mixture (HxCDD) 19408-74-3 7.2E-03 ca 1.1E-03 caHexachloroethane 67-72-1 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caHexachloropentadiene 77-47-4 4.5E+02 nc 2.6E+02 ncHexachlorophene 70-30-4 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncHexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) 121-82-4 4.0E+02 ca 6.1E+01 caHexahydro-2-azepinone 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncHexahydro-2H-Azepin-2-one 105-60-2 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncHexahydrobenzenamine 108-91-8 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncHexahydro-1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-Triazine 121-82-4 4.0E+02 ca 6.1E+01 ca

1,6-Hexamethylene Diisocyanate 822-06-0 NA NA 1.0E-01 ncHexane 110-54-3 2.9E+02 nc 3.5E+02 ncn-Hexane 110-54-3 2.9E+02 nc 3.5E+02 ncHexazinone 51235-04-2 2.2E+03 nc 1.2E+03 ncHexone 108-10-1 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncHMX b 2691-41-0 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 19408-74-3 7.2E-03 ca 1.1E-03 caHydracrylonitrile 109-78-4 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncHydrazine, Hydrazine Sulfate 302-01-2 1.5E+01 ca 2.2E+00 caHydrazodibenzene 122-66-7 5.6E+01 ca 8.4E+00 ca

Hydrocyanic acid, potassium salt 151-50-8 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncHydrocyanic acid, sodium salt 143-33-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncHydrogen Chloride c 7647-01-0 NA NA 2.1E+02 ncHydrogen Cyanide 74-90-8 1.6E+03 nca 6.2E+00 ncHydrogen Sulfide 7783-06-4 NA NA 2.0E+00 ncHydroquinone 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncp-Hydroquinone 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncHydroxybenzene 108-95-2 3.9E+04 nc 2.2E+04 nc1-Hydroxy-2,4-Dimethylbenzene 105-67-9 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc1-Hydroxy-3-Methylbenzene 108-39-4 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc4-Hydroxynitrobenzene 100-02-7 4.8E+03 nc 2.3E+03 ncp-Hydroxyphenol 123-31-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 nc3-Hydroxypropanenitrile 109-78-4 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc3-Hydroxypropionitrile 109-78-4 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncHydroxytoluene 100-51-6 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc4-Hydroxytoluene 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncp-Hydroxytoluene 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncImazalil 35554-44-0 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncImazaquin 81335-37-7 1.6E+04 nc 9.1E+03 ncIndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 193-39-5 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 caIprodione 36734-19-7 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncIron c 7439-89-6 2.3E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncIsobutanol 78-83-1 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncIsobutyl methyl ketone 108-10-1 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 nc

Bis(p-Isocyanotophenyl) Methane 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 ncIsophorone 78-59-1 4.7E+04 ca 7.1E+03 caIsophthalonitrile,tetrachloro- 1897-45-6 4.0E+03 ca 6.1E+02 ca

Isophthlonitrile,2,4,5,6-tetrachloro- 1897-45-6 4.0E+03 ca 6.1E+02 ca



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierIsopropalin 33820-53-0 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 ncIsopropene cyanide 126-98-7 1.3E+00 nc 1.0E+00 ncIsopropoxymethylphosphonyl fluoride g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncIsopropoxymethylphosphoryl fluoride g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncIsopropyl methanefluorophosphate g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncIsopropyl Methyl Phosphonic Acid 1832-54-8 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncIsopropyl methylfluorophosphate g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 nco-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncIsopropyl-methyl-phosphoryl fluoride g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncIsoxaben 82558-50-7 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncKarate/Cyhalothrin 68085-85-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncKepone 143-50-0 2.5E+00 ca 3.7E-01 caL e 541-25-3 3.9E+01 nc 3.7E+00 ncLactofen 77501-63-4 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncLead 7439-92-1 4.0E+02 nc 4.0E+00 ncLead (Tetraethyl) 78-00-2 6.5E-03 nc 3.7E-03 ncLewisite e 541-25-3 3.9E+01 nc 3.7E+00 ncLindane 58-89-9 3.4E+01 ca 5.2E+00 caLinuron 330-55-2 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncLithium 7439-93-2 1.5E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncLondax 83055-99-6 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncm-Dimethylbenzene 108-38-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 ncm-Hydroxytoluene 108-39-4 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncm-Xylene 108-38-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 ncm-Xylenol 105-67-9 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncMalathion 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncMaleic acid anhydride 108-31-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncMaleic Anhydride 108-31-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncMaleic Hydrazide 123-33-1 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncMalononitrile 109-77-3 1.3E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncMancozeb 8018-01-7 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncManeb 12427-38-2 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncManeb 80 12427-38-2 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncManganese and compounds 7439-96-5 3.8E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncManganese ethylene bis-dithiocarbamate 12427-38-2 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncManganese (Tradename) 12427-38-2 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMBIK 108-10-1 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncMephosfolan 950-10-7 5.9E+00 nc 3.3E+00 ncMepiquat 24307-26-4 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncMercaptosuccinic acid diethyl ester 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncMercury (Inorganic) c 7439-97-6 2.3E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncMercury (Methyl) 22967-92-6 6.5E+00 nc 3.7E+00 ncMerphos 150-50-5 2.0E+00 nc 1.1E+00 ncMerphos Oxide 78-48-8 2.0E+00 nc 1.1E+00 ncMetalaxyl 57837-19-1 3.9E+03 nc 2.2E+03 ncMethacrylonitrile 126-98-7 1.3E+00 nc 1.0E+00 ncMethamidophos 10265-92-6 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncMethane,chlorodibromo- 124-48-1 5.3E+02 ca 1.0E+02 caMethanol 67-56-1 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncMethidathion 950-37-8 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierMethomyl 16752-77-5 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncMethoxy ether of Propylene glycol 107-98-2 4.6E+04 nc 2.6E+04 nc1-Methoxy-2-Propanol 107-98-2 4.6E+04 nc 2.6E+04 ncMethoxy-5-nitroaniline, 2- 99-59-2 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 caMethoxychlor 72-43-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMethoxyethanol 109-86-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc2-Methoxyethanol Acetate 110-49-6 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc2-Methoxyethanol 109-86-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncMethoxyhydroxyethane 109-86-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc2-Methoxy-2-Methyl Propane 1634-04-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc2-Methoxy-5-Nitroaniline 99-59-2 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 caMethyl 1,1-dimethylethyl ether 1634-04-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMethyl Acetate 79-20-9 2.0E+04 nc 6.1E+03 ncMethyl Acrylate 96-33-3 1.5E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMethyl Alcohol 67-56-1 3.3E+04 nc 1.8E+04 ncMethyl Benzene 108-88-3 1.9E+03 nc 7.2E+02 ncMethyl Bromide 74-83-9 1.5E+01 nc 8.7E+00 ncMethyl Cellosolve 109-86-4 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncMethyl Cellosolve Acetate 110-49-6 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncMethyl Chloride 74-87-6 2.0E+02 ca 1.5E+02 caMethyl Chlorocarbonate 79-22-1 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncMethyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 8.7E+03 nc 1.9E+03 ncMethyl Hydrazine 60-34-4 4.0E+01 ca 6.1E+00 caMethyl Isobutyl Ketone 108-10-1 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncMethyl Methacrylate 80-62-6 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncMethyl Parathion 298-00-0 1.6E+01 nc 9.1E+00 ncMethyl Styrene (Alpha) 98-83-9 1.8E+03 nc 4.3E+02 ncMethyl Styrene (mixture) 25013-15-4 2.2E+02 nc 6.0E+01 ncMethyl tert-Butyl Ether 1634-04-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMethyl Tertbutyl 1634-04-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMethyl Toluene 1330-20-7 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 ncMethyl-4-Pentanone 108-10-1 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 nc2-Methyl-5-Nitroaniline 99-55-8 1.3E+03 ca 2.0E+02 ca2-Methylaniline (o-Toluidine) 100-61-8 1.9E+02 ca 2.8E+01 ca2-Methylaniline Hydrochloride 636-21-5 2.5E+02 ca 3.7E+01 caMethylaniline, 2- (o-Toluidine) 100-61-8 1.9E+02 ca 2.8E+01 caMethylbenzene 108-88-3 1.9E+03 nc 7.2E+02 nc4-(2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxy)Butyric Acid 94-81-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nc2-(2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxy)Propionic Acid 93-65-2 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxyacetic Acid 94-74-6 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 nc2-(2-Methyl-1,4-Chlorphenoxy)Propionic Acid 16484-77-8 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc3-Methylcholanthrene 193-39-5 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 ca5-Methylchrysene RRSE-009 3.2E+00 ca NA NAMethylcyclohexane 108-87-2 5.6E+04 nc 3.1E+04 nc1-Methyl-2,4-Dinitrobenzene 121-14-2 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc4,4'-Methylene bis(N,N'-Dimethyl)Aniline 101-61-1 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 ca4,4'-Methylene bis(2-Chloroaniline) 101-14-4 3.4E+02 ca 5.2E+01 caMethylene Bromide 74-95-3 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncMethylene Chloride 75-09-2 1.1E+03 ca 4.3E+02 ca4,4-Methylene Dianiline 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 ca



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier

Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 nc

Methylene(b)4-Phenylisocyanate 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 ncMethylenebis (4-Phenyleneisocyanate) 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 ncMethylenebis(p-Phenylene Isocyanate) 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 nc

4,4'- Methylenebis-benzeneamine 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 ca4,4'-Methylenebis (N,N'-Dimethyl) Benzeneamine 101-61-1 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 ca1,1-Methylenebis (4-Isocyanatobenzene) 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 nc4,4'-Methylenedianiline 101-77-9 1.8E+02 ca 2.7E+01 ca4,4'-Methylenediphenyl Isocyanate 101-68-8 3.7E-01 nc 2.1E-01 nc4,4'-Methylene iso (N,N'-Dimethyl) Aniline 101-61-1 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 ca2-(1-Methylethoxy) Phenolmethylcarbamate 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncMethylfluorophosphonic acid, isopropyl ester g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 nc1-Methyl-4-Hydroxybenzene 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMethylisopropoxy-fluorophosphine oxide g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncN-Methylmethanamine 124-40-3 6.2E-02 nc 3.5E-02 ncMethyl-2-(1-Methylethoxy)Phenyl Ester Acid 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 nc2-Methyl-5-Nitroaniline 99-55-8 1.3E+03 ca 2.0E+02 ca2-Methyl-4-Pentanone 108-10-1 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 nc2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) 95-48-7 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc3-Methylphenol (m-Cresol) 108-39-4 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc4-Methylphenol (p-Cresol) 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncp-Methylphenol 106-44-5 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMethylphosphonofluoridic acid 1,2,2-trimethylpropyl ester h 96-64-0 2.0E+00 nc 1.8E-01 ncMethylphosphonofluoridic acid 1-methylethyl ester g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncMethylphosphonofluoridic acid isopropyl ester g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 nc2-Methyl-2-Propenenitrile 126-98-7 1.3E+00 nc 1.0E+00 ncBis(2-Methylpropyl) Carbamothioic Acid s-Ethyl Ester 2008-41-5 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncp-Methyltoluene 106-42-3 1.6E+03 sat nc 5.2E+02 ncc

Metolaclor 51218-45-2 9.8E+03 nc 5.5E+03 ncMetolaclor (Dual) 51218-45-2 9.8E+03 nc 5.5E+03 ncMetribuzin 21087-64-9 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncMichler's base 101-61-1 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 caMirex 2385-85-5 2.5E+01 ca 3.7E+00 caMolinate 2212-67-1 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncMolybdenum 7439-98-7 3.8E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMonochloramine 10599-90-3 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncMonochlorobenzene 108-90-7 1.6E+02 nc 3.9E+01 ncMonoethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1.3E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncMonohydroxybenzene 108-95-2 3.9E+04 nc 2.2E+04 ncMTBE 1634-04-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncMustard d 505-60-2 2.7E+00 nc 2.6E-01 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierNaled 300-76-5 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 nc2,7-Naphtalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3-((4'-((2,4- 1937-37-7 5.2E+00 ca 7.8E-01 caNaphthalene 91-20-3 8.0E+02 nc 2.4E+02 nc2-Naphthylamine c 91-59-8 4.9E-01 ca 5.2E-02 ca1,2-(1,8-Naphthylene)Benzene 120-82-1 6.2E+02 nc 1.9E+02 ncNapropamide 15299-99-7 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncNickel (Soluble Salts) 7440-02-0 1.5E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncNitran 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 caNitrapyrin 1929-82-4 9.8E+01 nc 5.5E+01 ncNitrate 14797-55-8 1.0E+05 max 5.8E+04 ncNitric Oxide 10102-43-9 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncNitrite 14797-65-0 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc5-Nitroacenaphthene RRSE-010 5.4E+02 ca NA NA2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 3.9E+00 nc 2.2E+00 nc3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 2.3E+02 nc 1.1E+02 nc4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 2.3E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncNitrobenzene 98-95-3 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncp-Nitrochlorobenzene 100-00-5 2.5E+03 ca 3.7E+02 caNitrochlorobenzene, para 100-00-5 2.5E+03 ca 3.7E+02 ca6-Nitrochrysene RRSE-011 6.1E-01 ca NA NA2-Nitrofluorene RRSE-012 6.1E+02 ca NA NANitrofurantoin 67-20-9 4.6E+03 nc 2.6E+03 ncNitrofurazone 59-87-0 3.0E+01 ca 4.5E+00 caNitrogen Dioxide c 101102-44-0 7.8E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncNitrogen-monoxide- 10102-43-9 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncNitroguanidine 556-88-7 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 4.8E+03 nc 2.3E+03 ncp-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 4.8E+03 nc 2.3E+03 nc2-Nitropropane 79-46-9 NA NA 3.5E+03 ca1-Nitropyrene RRSE-013 6.1E+01 ca NA NA4-Nitropyrene RRSE-014 6.1E+01 ca NA NAN-Nitroso-N-methylethylamine 10595-95-6 2.0E+00 ca 3.1E-01 caN-Nitrosodi-n-Butylamine 924-16-3 8.2E+00 ca 1.2E+00 caN-Nitrosodiethanolamine 1116-54-7 1.6E+01 ca 2.4E+00 caN-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5 3.0E-01 ca 4.5E-02 caN-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 8.7E-01 ca 1.3E-01 caN-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 9.1E+03 ca 1.4E+03 caN-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 6.3E+00 ca 9.6E-01 caN-Nitroso-N-Methylethylamine 10595-95-6 2.0E+00 ca 3.1E-01 caN-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2 2.1E+01 ca 3.2E+00 cam-Nitrotoluene 99-08-1 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nco-Nitrotoluene c 88-72-2 2.0E+04 nc 6.1E+01 ncp-Nitrotoluene 99-99-0 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nc5-Norbornene-2,3-dimethanol, 1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro-, cyclicsulfite 115-29-7 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncNorflurazon 27314-13-2 3.1E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncNuStar 85509-19-9 4.6E+01 nc 2.6E+01 nc

O,O-Dimethyl phosphorodithioate 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncO,O-Dimethyl thiophosphate 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nco-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester 117-84-0 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nco-Isopropoxyphenyl N-methylcarbamate 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncO-Isopropyl methylisopropoxy-fluorodphosphine oxide g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifiero-Phenylenepyrene 193-39-5 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 caOctabromodiphenyl Ether 32536-52-0 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncOctahydro-1,3,5,7-Tetranitro-1,3,5,7-Tetrazocine (HMX) b 2691-41-0 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncOctamethylpyrophosphoramide 152-16-9 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncOctyl phthalate 117-84-0 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncN-Octyl phthalate 117-84-0 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncOryzalin 19044-88-3 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncOxacyclopentadiene 110-00-9 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncOxadiazon 19666-30-9 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncOxamyl 23135-22-0 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 nc1,4-Oxathiane b 15980-15-1 1.0E+05 sat nc 2.6E+07 ncOxybenzene 108-95-2 3.9E+04 nc 2.2E+04 nc1,1'-Oxybis(2-Chloro)Ethane 111-44-4 7.4E+00 ca 9.8E-01 ca2,2'-Oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 108-60-1 6.3E+02 ca 9.6E+01 ca1,1'-Oxybis(2,3,5,6-Pentabromo-(9Cl)-Benzene 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caOxyfluofen 42874-03-3 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncOxytol acetate 111-15-9 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncp,p'-Bis(Dimethylamino) Diphenylmethane 101-61-1 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 cap,p-Dimethylamino- diphenylmethane 101-61-1 9.7E+02 ca 1.5E+02 caPaclobutrazol 76738-62-0 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncParadichlorobenzene 106-46-7 7.4E+02 ca 4.7E+01 caParanaphthalate 120-12-7 1.9E+01 nc 1.8E+03 ncParaquat 4685-14-7 2.9E+02 nc 1.6E+02 ncParathion 56-38-2 3.9E+02 nc 2.2E+02 ncPCB 1336-36-3 6.6E+00 ca 8.7E-01 caPCB 1016 12674-11-2 4.9E+00 nc 2.6E+00 ncPCBs 1336-36-3 6.6E+00 ca 8.7E-01 caPCE 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 caPebulate 1114-71-2 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncPendimethalin 40487-42-1 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncPentabromo-6-Chloro Cyclohexane 87-84-3 1.9E+03 ca 2.9E+02 caPentabromodiphenyl Ether 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caBis(Pentabromophenyl)Ether 1163-19-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 caPentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 5.2E+01 nc 2.9E+01 ncPentachloronitrobenzene 82-68-8 1.7E+02 ca 2.6E+01 caPentachlorophenol 87-86-5 2.5E+02 ca 5.6E+01 caPentachlorophenyl Chloride 118-74-1 2.8E+01 ca 4.2E+00 ca2-Pentanone, 4-Methyl- 108-10-1 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncPERC 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 caPerchlorobenzene 118-74-1 2.8E+01 ca 4.2E+00 caPerchloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 caPermethrin 52645-53-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncPhenmedipham 13684-63-4 1.6E+04 nc 9.1E+03 ncPhenol 108-95-2 3.9E+04 nc 2.2E+04 ncPhenol, 2,4-dichloro- 120-83-2 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncPhenol, o-isopropoxy-, methylcarbomate 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncN-Phenylaniline 122-39-4 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncN-Phenylbenzenamine 122-39-4 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncPhenylcarbinol 100-51-6 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 nc1,4-Phenylenediamine 106-50-3 1.2E+04 nc 6.9E+03 ncm-Phenylenediamine 108-45-2 3.9E+02 nc 2.2E+02 ncp-Phenylenediamine 106-50-3 1.2E+04 nc 6.9E+03 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1,10-(1,2-Phenylene)Pyrene 193-39-5 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 ca2,3-Phenylenepyrene 193-39-5 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 ca2,3-o-Phenylenepyrene 193-39-5 6.1E+01 ca 9.2E+00 caPhenylethane 100-41-4 6.9E+02 sat nc 1.3E+03 ncPhenylethylene 100-42-5 2.2E+03 sat nc 1.6E+03 ncPhenylmercuric Acetate 62-38-4 5.2E+00 nc 2.9E+00 ncPhenylmethanal 100-52-7 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncPhenylmethane 108-88-3 1.9E+03 nc 7.2E+02 ncPhenylphenol 90-43-7 2.3E+04 ca 3.5E+03 nc2-Phenylphenol 90-43-7 2.3E+04 ca 3.5E+03 ncPhorate 298-02-2 1.3E+01 nc 7.3E+00 ncPhosmet 732-11-6 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncPhosphine 7803-51-2 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncPhosphonofluoridic acid, methyl-, isopropyl ester g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncPhosphonothioic acid, methyl-, S-[2-[bis(1-methylethyl-amino)ethyl] O-ethyl ester i 50782-69-9 2.7E-01 nc 2.6E-02 ncPhosphonothioic acid, methyl-, S-(2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl) O-ethyl ester i 50782-69-9 2.7E-01 nc 2.6E-02 ncPhosphorodithioic acid,o,o-diethyl s-(((1,1- 13071-79-9 1.6E+00 nc 9.1E-01 ncPhosphorus (white) c 7723-14-0 1.6E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncPhospphonofluoridic acid, methyl-, 1-methylethyl ester g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncPhosvin 1314-84-7 2.3E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncPhthalic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester 117-81-7 3.2E+03 ca 4.8E+02 caPhthalic acid, dimethyl ester 131-11-3 1.0E+05 nc 3.7E+05 ncPhthalic acid, dioctyl ester 117-84-0 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncPhthalic acid, methyl ester 131-11-3 1.0E+05 nc 3.7E+05 ncp-Phthalic Acid 100-21-0 7.8E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncPhthalic Anhydride 85-44-9 1.6E+05 nc 7.3E+04 ncPicloram 1918-02-1 4.6E+03 nc 2.6E+03 ncPinacoloxymethylphosphoryl fluoride h 96-64-0 2.0E+00 nc 1.8E-01 ncPinacolyl methylphosphonofluorididate h 96-64-0 2.0E+00 nc 1.8E-01 ncPirimiphos-Methyl 23505-41-1 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncPolybrominated Biphenyls 13336-36-3 5.0E+00 ca 7.6E-01 caPolychlorinated Biphenyls 1336-36-3 6.6E+00 ca 8.7E-01 caPolychlorinated Terphenyls RRSE-015 1.4E+01 ca 1.5E+00 caPolychlorobiphenyl 1336-36-3 6.6E+00 ca 8.7E-01 caPotassium Cyanide 151-50-8 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncPotassium Silver Cyanide 506-61-6 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 ncProchloraz 67747-09-5 3.0E+02 ca 3.3E+04 caProfluralin 26399-36-0 3.9E+02 nc 2.2E+02 ncPrometon 1610-18-0 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 ncPrometryn 7287-19-6 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncPronamide 23950-58-5 4.9E+03 nc 2.7E+03 ncPropachlor 1918-16-7 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncPropane, 1-Chloro-2,3-Epoxy- 106-89-8 8.6E+00 nc 2.0E+00 ncPropanil 709-98-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc2-Propanol, 1-Methoxy- 107-98-2 4.6E+04 nc 2.6E+04 ncPropargite 2312-35-8 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncPropargyl Alcohol 107-19-7 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncPropazine 139-40-2 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier2-Propenal 107-02-8 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncPropene, 3-Chloro- 107-05-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncPropenenitrile 107-13-1 1.3E+01 ca 3.7E+02 ca2-Propenenitrile 107-13-1 1.3E+01 ca 3.7E+02 ca2-Propenenitrile,2-methyl- 126-98-7 1.3E+00 nc 1.0E+00 nc2-Propene-1-ol 107-18-6 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc2-Propenoic acid, ethyl ester c 140-66-2 6.5E+01 ca 2.3E+01 caPropenol 107-18-6 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc1-Propenol-3 107-18-6 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncPropham 122-49-9 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncPropiconazole 60207-90-1 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncPropionic acid, 2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) 93-72-1 5.2E+02 nc 2.9E+02 ncPropionitrile, 3-Hydroxy- 109-78-4 2.0E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncPropoxur 114-26-1 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncPropyl-alpha,alpha,alpha- Trifluoro-p-Toluidine 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 can-Propylcarbinyl Chloride 109-69-3 1.0E+03 sat nc 2.4E+03 ncPropylene Aldehyde 107-02-8 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncPropylene Glycol 57-55-6 1.0E+05 nc 7.3E+05 ncPropylene Glycol, Monoethyl Ether 111-35-3 4.6E+04 nc 2.6E+04 ncPropylene Glycol, Monomethyl Ether 107-98-2 4.6E+04 nc 2.6E+04 ncPropylene Oxide 75-56-9 NA NA 2.2E+01 caPursuit 81335-77-5 1.6E+04 nc 9.1E+03 ncPydrin 51630-58-1 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncPyrene 129-00-0 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncbeta-Pyrene 129-00-0 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncPyridine 110-86-1 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncQuinalphos 13593-03-8 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncQuinoline 91-22-5 3.7E+00 ca 5.6E-01 caRDX 121-82-4 4.0E+02 ca 6.1E+01 caResmethrin 10453-86-8 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncRonnel 299-84-3 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncRotenone 83-79-4 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncs-((tert-Butylthio)methyl) o,o-Diethylphosphorodithioate 13071-79-9 1.6E+00 nc 9.1E-01 ncs-Ethylbis(2-Methylpropyl)carbamothioate 2008-41-5 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncs-Triazine,2-Chloro-4,6-bis(Ethylamino)- 122-34-9 3.7E+02 ca 5.6E+01 cas-Triazine,2-Chloro-4-Ethylamino-6-Isopropylamino- 1912-24-9 2.0E+02 ca 3.0E+01 caSarin g 107-44-8 7.8E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncSavey 78578-05-0 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncSelenious Acid 7783-00-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncSelenium 7782-49-2 3.8E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncSelenourea 630-10-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncSethoxydim 74051-80-2 5.9E+03 nc 3.3E+03 ncSilver and compounds 7440-22-4 3.8E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncSilver Cyanide 506-64-9 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 ncSimazine 122-34-9 3.7E+02 ca 5.6E+01 caSodium Azide 26628-22-8 2.6E+02 nc 1.5E+02 ncSodium Cyanide 143-33-9 2.6E+03 nc 1.5E+03 ncSodium Diethyldithiocarbamate 20624-25-3 1.6E+02 ca 2.5E+01 caSodium Fluoroacetate 62-74-8 1.3E+00 nc 7.3E-01 ncSodium Metavanadate 13718-26-8 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierSoman h 96-64-0 2.0E+00 nc 1.8E-01 ncStrontium (Stable) 7440-24-6 4.6E+04 nc 2.2E+04 ncStrychnine 57-24-9 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncStyrene 100-42-5 2.2E+03 sat nc 1.6E+03 ncSuccinic acid 121-75-5 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncSulfur Mustard d 505-60-2 2.7E+00 nc 2.6E-01 ncSysthane 88671-89-0 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncTabun f 77-81-6 1.6E+01 nc 1.5E+00 ncTalstar (Biphenthrin) 82657-04-3 9.8E+02 nc 5.5E+02 ncTBTO (Tributyltin Oxide) 56-35-9 2.0E+00 nc 1.1E+00 ncTCDD 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 ca2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 caTCMTB 3689-24-5 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncTebuthiuron 34014-18-1 4.6E+03 nc 2.6E+03 ncTemephos 3383-96-8 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncTerbacil 5902-51-2 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncTerbufos 13071-79-9 1.6E+00 nc 9.1E-01 ncTerbutryn 886-50-0 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 nc

Terephthalic Acid, Dimethyl Ester 120-61-6 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nctert-Butyl Methyl Ether 1634-04-4 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 nc1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 nc2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-1,3-Benzene-dicarbonitrile 1897-45-6 4.0E+03 ca 6.1E+02 ca2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorobenzo- 1,4- Dioxin 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 ca2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorobenzo- p-Dioxin 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 ca2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(be) (1,4)Dioxin 1746-01-6 3.8E-04 ca 4.5E-05 ca1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6 4.8E+02 ca 4.3E+01 ca1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 9.0E+01 ca 5.5E+00 caTetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 ca1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 7.0E+02 ca 1.1E+02 ca2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 58-90-2 2.0E+03 nc 1.1E+03 ncp,a,a,a-Tetrachlorotoluene 5216-25-1 2.2E+00 ca 3.4E-01 caTetrachlorovinphos 961-11-5 1.9E+03 ca 2.8E+02 caTetraethyldithiopyrophosphate 3689-24-5 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncTetrahydro-1,4-Dioxin 123-91-1 1.4E+03 ca 1.0E+02 caTetrahydro-p-Dioxin 123-91-1 1.4E+03 ca 1.0E+02 caTetramethylenethiuram Disulphide 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncTetramethylthiuram Bisulfide 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncTetryl a 479-45-8 7.8E+02 nc NA NAThallic Oxide 1314-32-1 5.4E+00 nc 2.6E+00 ncThallium Acetate 563-68-8 6.9E+00 nc 3.3E+00 ncThallium Carbonate 6533-73-9 6.1E+00 nc 2.9E+00 ncThallium Chloride 7791-12-0 6.1E+00 nc 2.9E+00 ncThallium Nitrate 10102-45-1 6.9E+00 nc 3.3E+00 ncThallium Selenite 12039-52-0 6.9E+00 nc 3.3E+00 ncThallium Sulfate 7446-18-6 6.1E+00 nc 2.9E+00 nc2-(Thicyanomethylithio)-benzothiazole (TCMTB) 3689-24-5 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncThiobencarb 28249-77-6 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nc2-(Thiocyanomethylthio)-Benzothiazole 3689-24-5 3.3E+01 nc 1.8E+01 ncThiodiglycol b 111-48-8 1.0E+05 max 1.4E+07 ncThiofanox 39196-18-4 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 nc



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) QualifierThiolcarbamate 2008-41-5 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncThiophanate-Methyl 23564-05-8 5.2E+03 nc 2.9E+03 ncThiram 137-26-8 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncTin 7440-31-5 4.6E+04 nc 2.2E+04 ncTNT 118-96-7 1.5E+03 ca 2.2E+02 caToluene 108-88-3 1.9E+03 nc 7.2E+02 ncToluene hexahydride 108-87-2 5.6E+04 nc 3.1E+04 ncToluene, 2,4-Dinitro- 121-14-2 1.3E+02 nc 7.3E+01 ncToluene-2,4-Diamine 95-80-7 1.4E+01 ca 2.1E+00 caToluene-2,5-Diamine 95-70-5 3.9E+04 nc 2.2E+04 ncToluene-2,6-Diamine 823-40-5 1.3E+04 nc 7.3E+03 nco-Toluidine 100-61-8 1.9E+02 ca 2.8E+01 cap-Toluidine 106-49-0 2.3E+02 ca 3.5E+01 cap-Toluidine,alpha,alpha,alpha-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 caToluol 108-88-3 1.9E+03 nc 7.2E+02 ncTolylchloride 100-44-7 1.4E+02 ca 6.6E+00 caToxaphene 8001-35-2 4.0E+01 ca 6.1E+00 caTralomethrin 66841-25-6 4.9E+02 nc 2.7E+02 nctrans-2-Butenal 123-73-9 1.6E+00 ca 5.9E-01 ca1,2-trans-dichloroethylene 156-60-5 1.7E+02 nc 1.2E+02 ncTriallate 2303-17-5 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncTriasulfuron 82097-50-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 ncas-Triazin-5(4H)-one,4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)- 21087-64-9 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 nc1,2,4-Tribromobenzene 615-54-3 3.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 ncTribromomethane 75-25-2 5.6E+03 ca 8.5E+02 caTributyltin Oxide (TBTO) 56-35-9 2.0E+00 nc 1.1E+00 nc2,4,6-Trichloroaniline Hydrochloride 33663-50-2 1.5E+03 ca 2.3E+02 caTrichloroaniline Hydrochloride, 2,4,6- 33663-50-2 1.5E+03 ca 2.3E+02 ca2,4,6-Trichloroaniline 634-93-5 1.3E+03 ca 2.0E+02 ca1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 6.2E+02 nc 1.9E+02 nc2,2,2-Trichloro-1,1-di-(4-Chloro- phenyl)Ethanol 115-32-2 1.0E+02 ca 1.5E+01 ca1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 3.0E+03 nc 1.3E+03 nc1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 1.4E+02 ca 2.0E+01 caTrichloroethylene (TCE) 79-01-6 7.1E+02 ca 1.6E+02 caTrichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 7.1E+02 nc 1.3E+03 nc2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 6.5E+03 nc 3.7E+03 nc2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 4.0E+03 ca 6.1E+02 ca2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) Propionic Acid (2,4,5-TP) 93-72-1 5.2E+02 nc 2.9E+02 nc2,4,5-T 93-76-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nc

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 93-76-5 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nc1,1,2-Trichloropropane 598-77-6 5.1E+01 nc 3.0E+01 nc1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4 6.6E-01 ca 1.6E-01 ca1,2,3-Trichloropropene 96-19-5 7.5E+01 nc 3.0E+01 nc1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane 76-13-1 4.1E+03 sat 5.9E+04 ncTridiphane 58138-08-2 2.0E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncTriethylamine 121-44-8 2.2E+01 nc 1.2E+01 ncN-(m-Trifluoromethylphenyl)- N',N'-Dimethylurea 2164-17-2 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncTrifluralin 1582-09-8 5.8E+03 ca 8.7E+02 caTrimethyl Phosphate 512-56-1 1.2E+03 ca 1.8E+02 ca



Analyte Note CAS# Soil (mg/kg) Qualifier Water (ug/L) Qualifier1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene c 95-63-6 3.9E+01 nc 3.0E+00 nc1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene c 108-67-8 3.1E+01 nc 2.4E+00 nc1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 99-35-4 3.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 ncTrinitroglycerin a RRSE-016 1.0E+02 nc NA NATrinitrophenylmethylnitramine 479-45-8 6.5E+02 nc 3.7E+02 nc2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 118-96-7 1.5E+03 ca 2.2E+02 caunsym-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 6.2E+02 nc 1.9E+02 ncUranium (Soluble Salts) 7440-61-1 2.3E+02 nc 1.1E+02 ncUrea,1,1-dimethyl-3-(alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-m-tolyl)- 2164-17-2 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncUrea,N,N-dimethyl-N'-(3(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)- 2164-17-2 8.5E+02 nc 4.7E+02 ncVanadic anhydride 1314-62-1 6.9E+02 nc 3.3E+02 ncVanadium 7440-62-2 5.4E+02 nc 2.6E+02 ncVanadium oxide 1314-62-1 6.9E+02 nc 3.3E+02 ncVanadium pentaoxide, non-fused form 1314-62-1 6.9E+02 nc 3.3E+02 ncVanadium Pentoxide 1314-62-1 6.9E+02 nc 3.3E+02 ncVanadium Sulfate 13701-70-7 1.5E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncVanadyl Sulfate 27774-13-6 1.5E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncVernam 1929-77-7 6.5E+01 nc 3.7E+01 ncVinclozolin 50471-44-8 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncVinyl 2-Chloroethyl Ether c 110-75-8 2.0E+03 nc 1.5E+02 ncVinyl Acetate 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncVinyl beta-Chloroethyl Ether c 110-75-8 2.0E+03 nc 1.5E+02 ncVinyl Bromide 593-60-2 4.5E+01 ca 1.0E+01 caVinyl Chloride 75-01-4 5.2E-01 ca 2.0E+00 caVinyl Cyanide 107-13-1 1.3E+01 ca 3.7E+02 caVinyl Ester Acetic Acid 108-05-4 6.5E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ncVinylbenzene 100-42-5 2.2E+03 sat nc 1.6E+03 ncVinylbenzol 100-42-5 2.2E+03 sat nc 1.6E+03 ncVX i 50782-69-9 2.7E-01 nc 2.6E-02 ncWarfarin 81-81-2 2.0E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncXylene 1330-20-7 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 ncXylene (Mixed) 1330-20-7 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 nc1,3-Xylene 108-38-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 nc1,4-Xylene 106-42-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 ncc

Isomers of xylene 1330-20-7 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 ncm-Xylene 108-38-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 nco-Xylene 95-47-6 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 ncp-Xylene 106-42-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 5.2E+02 ncc

Xylenes (isomers and mixtures) 1330-20-7 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 nc2,4-Xylenol 105-67-9 1.3E+03 nc 7.3E+02 ncZenkor 21087-64-9 1.6E+03 nc 9.1E+02 ncZinc 7440-66-6 2.3E+04 nc 1.1E+04 ncZinc Cyanide 557-21-1 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncZinc Phosphide 1314-84-7 2.3E+01 nc 1.1E+01 ncZineb 12122-67-7 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 ncZineb Delete 12122-67-7 3.3E+03 nc 1.8E+03 nc



Notes: All values presented in scientific notation - e.g., 2.5E+02 = 2.5 x 102 = 250 mg/kg - milligrams per killogram; equivalent to parts per million ug/L - micrograms per Liter; equivalent to parts per billion nc - value based on a non-cancer exposure endpoint ca - value based on a carcinogenic exposure endpoint sat - substance achieved point of saturation at this value max -set at 100,000 mg/kg for soils (nonvolatiles) Footnote in the qualifer column applies only to the associated media value. For example, the footnote "c" in the qualifier column for 1,4-Dimethylbenzene applies only to the value for water of 5.2E+02 ug/l.

a - Memorandum, HSHB-ME-SH, U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, 18 Nov 1993, subject: Risk-Based Soil Action Levels, Operation Safe Removal, Phase II, Spring Valley. b - Opresko, D., et al, Estimated Control Limits, Technologies and Regulatory Requirements for Remediating Sites Potentially Contaminated with Nonstockpile Chemical Materiels, Final Draft Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November 1994. These numbers are draft, as of March 1996.

c - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Risk-Based Concentration Table, July December 1995, October 20, 1995. d - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Sulfur Mustard (HD), April 1996.

e - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis and Derivation of Reference Doses for Lewisite (CAS NO 541-25-3), January 1996.

f - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent GA, April 1996

g - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent GB, April 1996 h - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent GD, April 1996

i - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent VX, April 1996

j - No Chemical AbstractSystem (CAS) Number available, unique identifier assigned for database tracking


RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESRadionuclides

Analyte CAS# Soil (pCi/kg) Water (pCi/L)Plutonium 236 15411-92-4 1.60E+06 9.50E+01Plutonium 238 13981-16-3 3.60E+05 2.20E+01Plutonium 239 15117-48-3 3.50E+05 2.10E+01Plutonium 240 14119-33-6 3.50E+05 2.10E+01Plutonium 241 14119-32-5 2.20E+07 1.30E+03Plutonium 242 13982-10-0 3.60E+05 2.20E+01Plutonium 243 15706-37-3 7.20E+08 4.30E+04Plutonium 244 14119-34-7 3.60E+05 2.20E+01Radium 226 13982-63-3 6.60E+05 4.00E+01Radon 222 14859-67-7 5.70E+07 3.40E+03Thorium 227 15623-47-9 1.80E+07 1.10E+03Thorium 228 14274-82-9 7.20E+06 4.30E+02Thorium 229 15594-54-4 3.80E+06 2.30E+02Thorium 230 14269-63-7 6.10E+06 3.70E+02Thorium 231 14932-40-2 2.00E+08 1.20E+04Thorium 232 7440-29-1 NA NAThorium 234 15065-10-8 2.00E+07 1.20E+03Tritium 10028-17-8 NA NAUranium 233 13968-55-3 5.00E+06 3.00E+02Uranium 234 13966-29-5 5.00E+06 3.00E+02Uranium 235 15117-96-1 5.00E+06 3.00E+02Uranium 238 7440-61-1 NA NA

Note - Values taken from EPA SCDM database and adjusted for 1 in 10,000 cancer risk.



APPENDIX B-2


Ambient Water Quality

Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) have been developed under Section 304(a) of the CleanWater Act for priority toxic pollutants as guidelines from which states develop water qualitystandards. The criteria used to develop the Relative Risk Comparison Values were extracted fromTitle 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 131, Chapter I, as amended. These ComparisonValues represent promulgated Federal criteria. Additional State requirements vary; thus, these arenot represented in this table. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria used inthis Appendix are for fresh water and marine chronic exposures; although, acute exposure valueshave been used (and identified) where no chronic levels exist. Also, the EPA’s Lowest ObservedEffects Levels are used (as indicated by footnotes) in the absence of established AWQC.

The AWQ Relative Risk Comparison Values should be used for the assessment of surface waterswhere the potentials for impacts on ecological health are of primary interest.


The Relative Risk Comparison Values will be formally updated as part of future Primer revisionsto address new data issued from EPA or other sources, including military unique compounds. TheRelative Risk Comparison Values will be posted on the Internet through the U.S. Army Center forHealth Promotion and Preventative Medicine home page.

RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESAmbient Water Quality

Analyte CAS NumberFresh LeL

ug/L FootMarine ER-

L ug/L FootAcenaphthene 83-32-9 5.20E+02 a,b 7.10E+02 a,bAcrolein 107-02-8 2.10E+01 a 5.50E+01 a,bAcrylaldehyde 107-02-8 2.10E+01 a 5.50E+01 a,bAcrylic Aldehyde 107-02-8 2.10E+01 a 5.50E+01 a,bAcrylon 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NAAcrylonitrile 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NAAldrin 309-00-2 3.00E+00 b 1.30E+00 bAlpha, Beta-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 2.00E+04 a 1.13E+05 a,bAntimony 7440-36-0 3.00E+01 d 5.00E+02 dAroclor 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02Arsenic (III) 22569-72-8 1.90E+02 3.60E+011,2-Benzacenaphthene 206-44-0 3.98E+03 a,b 1.60E+01 aBenzene 71-43-2 5.30E+03 a,b 7.00E+02 aBenzene, hexachloro- 118-74-1 3.68E+00 d NABenzene, methyl- 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aBenzene,1,2-(1,8-naphthylene)- 206-44-0 3.98E+03 a,b 1.60E+01 aBenzene,hydrazodi- 122-66-7 2.70E+02 a,b NA1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Ester 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dBenzenol 108-95-2 2.56E+03 a 5.80E+03 a,bBenzidine 92-87-5 2.50E+03 a,b NABenzo(jk)Fluorene 206-44-0 3.98E+03 a,b 1.60E+01 aBenzodioxathiepin-3-Oxide 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Benzoepin 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Beryllium 7440-41-7 5.30E+00 a NABHC 680-73-1 1.00E+02 a,b 3.00E-01 a,bBiphenyl, polychloro- 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate (DEHP) 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dCadmium 7440-43-9 1.10E+00 c 9.30E+00Carbon Dichloride 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 aCarbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 3.52E+04 a,b 5.00E+04 a,bChlordane 57-74-9 4.00E-03 4.00E-03Chlordane, alpha- (2) 57-74-9 4.00E-03 4.00E-03Chlordane, gamma- 57-74-9 4.00E-03 4.00E-03Chlorinated Naphthalenes RRSE-021 1.60E+03 a,b 7.50E+00 a,bChlorinated Benzenes RRSE-022 5.00E+01 a 1.29E+02 aChlorinated biphenyl 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02Chlorine 7782-50-5 1.10E+01 7.50E+00Chloro-3-methylphenol, 4- (p-Chloro-m-cresol) 59-50-7 3.00E+01 a,b NAp-Chloro-m-Cresol 59-50-7 3.00E+01 a,b NAChloroform 67-66-3 1.24E+03 a NA4-Chlorophenol 106-48-9 NA 2.97E+04 a,bChlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 4.00E-02 6.00E-03Chromium (III) 1308-14-1 2.10E+02 c 1.03E+04 a,bChromium (VI) 7440-47-3 1.10E+01 5.00E+01Copper 7440-50-8 1.20E+01 c 2.90E+00 bCyanide 57-12-5 5.20E+00 1.00E+00 bCyanide (free) 57-12-5 5.20E+00 1.00E+002,4-DCP 120-83-2 5.70E+03 a NA4,4-DDD 72-54-8 6.00E-01 a,b 3.60E+00 a,bDDE 72-55-9 1.05E+03 a,b 1.40E+01 a,b4,4-DDE 72-55-9 1.05E+03 a,b 1.40E+01 a,b




ug/L FootMarine ER-

L ug/L FootDDT 50-29-3 1.00E-03 1.00E-034,4-DDT 50-29-3 1.00E-03 1.00E-03DEHP 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dDemeton 8065-48-3 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Di(2-ethylhexyl)orthophthalate 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dDibenzo(b,e)(1,4)dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro- 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA

Dibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro- 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NADichlorobenzenes (total) 25321-22-6 7.63E+02 a 1.97E+03 a,b1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 107-06-2 2.00E+04 a 1.13E+05 a,bDichloroethylenes (total) 25323-30-3 1.16E+04 a,b 2.24E+05 a,b2,4-Dichlorohydroxybenzene 120-83-2 5.70E+03 a NA2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 5.70E+03 a NADichloropropane 26638-19-7 5.70E+03 a 3.04E+03 aDichloropropene 26952-23-8 2.44E+02 a 7.90E+02 a,bDieldrin 60-57-1 2.00E-03 2.00E-03Diethyl mercaptosuccinate s-ester with O,O- 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Diethyl mercaptosuccinate, O,O- 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01O,O-Diethyl Mercaptosuccinate 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dDi(2-Ethylhexyl)Orthophthalate 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dDi(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dDimethyl Dithiophosphate 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-012,4-Dimethyl Phenol 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NA2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NA4,6-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NADinitotoluene 121-14-2 2.30E+02 a NADinitrotoluene (total) 25321-14-6 NA 3.70E+02 aDinitrotoluene Mixture 25321-14-6 NA 3.70E+02 a2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 2.30E+02 a NA2,4-Dinitrotoluol 121-14-2 2.30E+02 a NADioctyl phthalate 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 d1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine 122-66-7 2.70E+02 a,b NA1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 2.70E+02 a,b NADTE 72-54-8 6.00E-01 a,b 3.60E+00 a,bEDC 107-06-2 2.00E+04 a 1.13E+05 a,bEndocide 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Endosol 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Endosulfan 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Endosulfan alpha 959-98-8 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Endosulfan beta 33213-65-9 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Endosulfan I 959-98-8 5.60E-02 9.00E-03alpha-Endosulfan 959-98-8 5.60E-02 9.00E-03beta-Endosulfan 33213-65-9 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Endrin 72-20-8 2.00E-03 2.00E-03Ethane, 1,2-dichloro- 107-06-2 2.00E+04 a 1.13E+05 a,bEthyl benzene 100-41-4 3.20E+04 a,b 4.30E+02 a,bEthylbenzene 100-41-4 3.20E+04 a,b 4.30E+02 a,bEthylbenzol 100-41-4 3.20E+04 a,b 4.30E+02 a,bEthylene dichloride 107-06-2 2.00E+04 a 1.13E+05 a,b1,2-Ethylene Dichloride 107-06-2 2.00E+04 a 1.13E+05 a,bEthylene tetrachloride 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 a




ug/L FootMarine ER-

L ug/L FootEthylene, tetrachloro- 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 a2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dFluoranthene 206-44-0 3.98E+03 a,b 1.60E+01 aFree cyanide 57-12-5 5.20E+00 1.00E+00Guthion 86-50-0 1.00E-02 1.00E-02Haloethers (total) RRSE-023 1.22E+02 a NAHalomethanes (total) RRSE-024 1.10E+04 a,b 6.40E+03 aHCH (gamma) Lindane 58-89-9 8.00E-02 1.60E-01 bHCH -technical 58-89-9 8.00E-02 1.60E-01 bHeptachlor 76-44-8 4.00E-03 4.00E-03Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 4.00E-03 4.00E-03Hexachloro-5-norbornene-2,3-dimethanol cyclic sulfite 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 3.68E+00 d NAHexachlorobicyclo(2.2.1)-2-heptene-5,6-bisoxymethylene sulfite 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 9.30E+00 a 3.20E+01 a,b1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Gamma - Lindane 58-89-9 8.00E-02 1.60E-01 bHexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) 58-89-9 8.00E-02 1.60E-01 bHexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 5.20E+00 a 7.00E+00 a,bHexachloroethane 67-72-1 5.40E+02 a 9.40E+02 a,bHexachloropentadiene 77-47-4 5.20E+00 a 7.00E+00 a,bHydrazobenzene 122-66-7 2.70E+02 a,b NAHydrazodibenzene 122-66-7 2.70E+02 a,b NAHydrogen Sulfide 7783-06-4 2.00E+00 2.00E+00Hydroxybenzene 108-95-2 2.56E+03 a 5.80E+03 a,b1-Hydroxy-2,4-dimethylbenzene 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NAIron 7439-89-6 1.00E+03 NAIsophorone 78-59-1 1.17E+05 a,b 1.29E+04 a,bLead 7439-92-1 3.20E+00 c 8.50E+00Lindane 58-89-9 8.00E-02 1.60E-01 bMalathion 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Mercaptosuccinic acid diethyl ester 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Mercury 7439-97-6 1.20E-02 2.50E-02Methoxychlor 72-43-5 3.00E-02 3.00E-02Methyl Benzene 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aMethyl-4-chlorophenol 59-50-7 3.00E+01 a,b NAMethylbenzene 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 a4-Methyl-3-Chlorophenol 59-50-7 3.00E+01 a,b NA1-Methyl-2,4-Dinitrobenzene 121-14-2 2.30E+02 a NAMirex 2385-85-5 1.00E-03 1.00E-03Monohydroxybenzene 108-95-2 2.56E+03 a 5.80E+03 a,bN,N'-Bianiline 122-66-7 2.70E+02 a,b NAN,N'-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 2.70E+02 a,b NANaphthalene 91-20-3 6.20E+02 a 2.35E+03 a,b1,2-(1,8-naphthylene)-Benzene 206-44-0 3.98E+03 a,b 1.60E+01 aNickel 7440-02-0 1.60E+02 c 8.30E+00Nickel (Soluble Salts) 7440-02-0 1.60E+02 c 8.30E+00Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 2.70E+04 a,b 6.68E+03 a,bNitrophenols (total) RRSE-025 1.50E+02 a 4.85E+03 a,bNitrosamines 35576-91-1 5.85E+03 a,b 3.30E+06 a,b




ug/L FootMarine ER-

L ug/L Foot5-Norbornene-2,3-dimethanol, 1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro-,cyclicsulfite 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03O,O-Dimethyl phosphorodithioate 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01O,O-Dimethyl thiophosphate 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Oxybenzene 108-95-2 2.56E+03 a 5.80E+03 a,bParathion 56-38-2 1.30E-02 NAPCB 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02PCBs 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02PCE 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 aPentachloroethane 76-01-7 1.10E+03 a 2.81E+02 aPentachlorophenol 87-86-5 1.30E+01 e 7.90E+00Pentachlorophenyl chloride 118-74-1 3.68E+00 d NAPERC 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 aPerchlorobenzene 118-74-1 3.68E+00 d NAPerchloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 aPhenanthrene 85-01-8 6.30E+00 d 4.60E+00 dPhenol 108-95-2 2.56E+03 a,b 5.80E+03 a,bPhenol,2,4-dichloro- 120-83-2 5.70E+03 a NAPhenylethane 100-41-4 3.20E+04 a,b 4.30E+02 a,bPhenylmethane 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aPhosphorus 7723-14-0 NA 1.00E-01Phthalate Esters RRSE-027 3.00E+00 a 3.40E+00 aPhthalic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dPolychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02Polychlorobiphenyl 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons RRSE-028 NA 3.00E+02 a,b2-Propenal 107-02-8 2.10E+01 a 5.50E+01 a,bPropenenitrile 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NA2-Propenenitrile 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NAPropylene aldehyde 107-02-8 2.10E+01 a 5.50E+01 a,bSelenium 7782-49-2 5.00E+00 7.10E+01Silver 7440-22-4 1.20E-01 9.20E-01 dSuccinic acid 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide 7783-06-4 2.00E+00 2.00E+00TCDD 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorobenzo-1,4- Dioxin 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorobenzo-p-Dioxin 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(be) (1,4)Dioxin 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 2.40E+03 a 9.02E+03 a,bTetrachloroethanes 25322-20-7 9.32E+03 a,b NATetrachloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 a1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 a2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol 935-95-5 NA 4.40E+02 a,bThallium 7440-28-0 4.00E+01 a 2.13E+03 a,bToluene 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aToluene,2,4-dinitro- 121-14-2 2.30E+02 a NAToluol 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aToxaphene 8001-35-2 2.00E-04 2.00E-04Trichlorinated Ethanes 25323-89-1 1.80E+04 a,b NA1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 NA 3.12E+04 a,b1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 9.40E+03 a NA




ug/L FootMarine ER-

L ug/L FootTrichloroethylene (TCE) 79-01-6 2.19E+04 a 2.00E+03 a,b2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 6.30E+01 d 1.10E+01 d2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 9.70E+02 a NAVinyl cyanide 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NA2,4-Xylenol 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NAm-Xylenol 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NAZinc 7440-66-6 1.10E+02 c 8.60E+01

Notes -

a - Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the Lowest Observed Effect Level (LOEL). b - No chronic exposure values available; value presented based on available acute toxicity levels. c - Hardness dependent criteria; 100 mg/L CaCO3 used. d - Value presented is a proposed criterion. e - pH dependent criterion; pH = 7.8 used.



APPENDIX B-3


MARINE AND AQUATIC SEDIMENTS

The Relative Risk Comparison Values presented should be used to rank marine, estuarine, andfresh water sediments that may impact potential ecological receptors in these habitats. (Concernsregarding human exposures to contaminated sediments should be addressed using the datapresented in Appendix B-1) These Comparison Values represent relatively conservative screeningvalues and are not to be considered as “clean-up goals.” Concentrations greater than theComparison Value generally indicates the need for a more extensive, site-specific assessment. TheNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] values apply to marine and estuarineenvironments, while the data, obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,have been widely used within DOD to assess fresh water systems.


The Relative Risk Comparison Values will be formally updated as part of future Primer revisionsto address new data issued from EPA or other sources. The Relative Risk Comparison Values willbe posted on the Internet through the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and PreventativeMedicine home page.

RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESMarine and Aquatic Sediment

Analyte CAS Number Marine ER-L

(mg/kg) a Freshwater LEL

(mg/kg) b

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 1.50E-01 NAAcenaphthylene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01Aldrin 309-00-2 NA 2.00E-03Anthracene 120-12-7 8.50E-02 2.20E-01Anthracin 120-12-7 8.50E-02 2.20E-01Antimony 7440-36-0 2.00E+00 NAArochlor 1016 12674-11-2 NA 7.00E-03Arochlor 1248 RRSE-030 NA 3.00E-02Arochlor 1254 11097-69-1 NA 6.00E-02Arochlor 1260 RRSE-031 NA 5.00E-03Aroclor 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Aroclor 1016 12674-11-2 NA 7.00E-03Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.30E+01 6.00E+001,2-Benzacenaphthene 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Benzene,1,2-(1,8-naphthylene)- 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Benzo(a)Anthracene 56-55-3 2.30E-01 3.20E-01Benzo(a)Pyrene 50-32-8 4.00E-01 3.70E-01Benzo(def)Phenanthrene 129-00-0 3.50E-01 4.90E-01Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 198-55-0 NA 1.70E-01Benzo(jk)Fluorene 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-0111,12-Benzofluoranthene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-018,9-Benzofluoranthene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01beta-Pyrene 129-00-0 3.50E-01 4.90E-01BHC 608-73-1 NA 3.00E-03alpha-BHC 319-84-6 NA 6.00E-03beta-BHC 319-85-7 NA 5.00E-032,3,1',8'-Binaphthylene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01Biphenyl, polychloro- 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Cadmium 7440-43-9 5.00E+00 6.00E-01Carbazole 86-74-8 4.00E-01 3.40E-01Chlordane 57-74-9 5.00E-04 7.00E-03Chlordane, alpha- (2) 57-74-9 5.00E-04 7.00E-03Chlordane, gamma- 57-74-9 5.00E-04 7.00E-03Chlorinated Biphenyl 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Chromium 7440-47-3 8.00E+01 2.60E+01Chrysene 218-01-9 6.00E-02 6.00E-02Copper 7440-50-8 7.00E+01 1.60E+011,8-Cyclopenta(de)naphthalene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01DDD 6088-51-3 1.00E-03 8.00E-034,4-DDD 6088-51-3 1.00E-03 8.00E-03DDE 72-55-9 2.00E-03 5.00E-034,4-DDE 72-55-9 2.00E-03 5.00E-03DDT 50-29-3 2.00E-03 8.00E-034,4-DDT 50-29-3 2.00E-03 8.00E-03Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 218-01-9 6.00E-02 6.00E-02Dibenzo(b,jk)fluorene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-011,2,5,6-Dibenzonaphthalene 218-01-9 6.00E-02 6.00E-02Dieldrin 60-57-1 2.00E-05 2.00E-03Endrin 72-20-8 2.00E-05 3.00E-03Fluoranthene 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Fluorene 86-73-7 3.50E-02 1.90E-01



Analyte CAS Number Marine ER-L

(mg/kg) a Freshwater LEL

(mg/kg) b

gamma-BHC 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03HCB RRSE-032 NA 2.00E-02HCH (alpha) 319-84-6 NA 6.00E-03HCH (beta) 319-85-7 NA 5.00E-03HCH (gamma) Lindane 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03HCH -technical 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 NA 5.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH) -Technical 608-73-1 NA 3.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Alpha 319-84-6 NA 6.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Beta 319-85-7 NA 5.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Gamma - Lindane 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 86-73-7 NA 2.00E-01Iron 7439-89-6 NA 2.00E+04Lead 7439-92-1 3.50E+01 3.10E+01Lindane 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03Manganese 7439-96-5 NA 4.60E+02Mercury 7439-97-6 1.50E-01 2.00E-012-Methylnapthalene 91-57-6 6.50E-02 NAMirex 2385-85-5 NA 7.00E-03Naphthalene 91-20-3 3.40E-01 NANickel 7440-02-0 3.00E+01 1.60E+01PAHs (total) RRSE-033 4.00E+00 4.00E+00Paranaphthalate 120-12-7 8.50E-02 2.20E-01PCB 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02PCB 1016 12674-11-2 NA 7.00E-03PCBs 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Phenanthrene 85-01-8 2.25E-01 5.60E-01Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Polychlorobiphenyl 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Pyrene 129-00-0 3.50E-01 4.90E-01Silver 7440-22-4 1.00E+00 NATotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen RRSE-034 NA 5.50E+02Total Organic Carbon (%) RRSE-035 NA 1.00E+00Total Phosphorus RRSE-036 NA 6.00E+02Zinc 7440-66-6 1.20E+02 1.20E+02



Notes - a - Obtained from: Long, Edward R. and Lee G. Morgan, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program , August 1990.

ER-L - Environmental Response-Low, which represents a no-effects level (i.e., response noted in less than 5% of the observations)

b - Obtained from: Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A Hayton, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario , August 1993.

LEL - Lowest Effect Level, which indicates a level of contamination which has an effect on less than 5% of the sediment-dwelling organisms observed


Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer C-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)

APPENDIX C

Regulatory Agreement and

Site Type Codes Used in DERA and BRAC Programs

Note: These codes are included here for informational purposes and will bekept consistent with codes used in the Restoration ManagementInformation System/Defense Site Environmental Restoration TrackingSystem (RMIS/DSERTS). Actual codes for each DoD installation andformerly used defense site reside in the Cost-to-Complete estimatesdatabase. Codes in this database will be cross-walked with relative risksite evaluation information to obtain actual Regulatory Agreement andRMIS/DSERTS Site Type Codes.


APPENDIX C

CODES FOR REGULATORY AGREEMENTS

Code Enforcement Agreement Comments*

A Federal Facility Agreement at NPL and proposed NPLinstallations

Yes

B Interagency Agreement (2 and 3 party) at non-NPLinstallations

Yes

C RCRA Permits with Corrective Action Requirements YesD RCRA Corrective Action Orders (Issued by EPA or a

state)Yes

E Consent Order under state law YesF Memorandum of Understanding commitments YesG Memorandum of Agreement commitments YesH Notice of Violation requirements YesI Requirements related to Agency for Toxic Substances

Disease Registry (e.g., response to health advisory)No

J Requirements related to Natural Resource Trustee claim(e.g., damage claim)

No

K Court-ordered requirements (in cases of litigation) YesL Imminent threats NoM Consent decrees (usually for third-party sites) YesN Unilateral orders (usually for third-party sites) YesO Preliminary Assessments for installations listed on the

DocketNo

P Long-Term Operation/Monitoring for in-place cleanupsystems for installations without agreements

No

Q State laws and regulations requiring response within aspecified period

No

R Congressional/owner concerns No, except for FUDSS Building demolition/debris removal No, except for FUDST Ordnance and explosive waste, RAC 1-2 No, except for FUDSU Ordnance and explosive waste, RAC 3-4 No, except for FUDSZ No agreements No

Blank Manpower/workyears No

* “Yes” in the comments column indicates a regulatory agreement for purposes of relative risk evaluation.“No” indicates that the agreement type is not considered a regulatory agreement for relative risk evaluation,with exceptions as noted.


CODES FOR RMIS/DSERTS SITE TYPES

Code Site Type

TA Aboveground Storage TankDB Building Demolition/Debris RemovalAB Burn AreaDC Chemical DisposalCB Contaminated BuildingsCF Contaminated FillCG Contaminated GroundwaterCS Contaminated SedimentsCD Contaminated Soil PilesDT Dip TankDP Disposal Pit/Dry WellDD Drainage DitchXE Explosive Ordnance Disposal AreaAT Fire/Crash Training AreaFR Firing RangeIN IncineratorID Industrial DischargeLF LandfillFL Leach FieldMY Maintenance YardWM Mixed Waste AreaOW Oil/Water SeparatorOS Optical ShopPS Pesticide ShopPR Pistol RangeSP Plating ShopPL POL (Petroleum/Oil/Lubricants) LinesWR Radioactive Waste AreaEP Sewage Effluent Settling PondsST Sewage Treatment PlantSR Small Arms RangeSO Soil Contamination After Tank RemovalSS Spill Site AreaSA Storage AreaSD Storm DrainDA Surface Disposal AreaSI Surface Impoundment/LagoonRS Surface RunoffTU Underground Storage TanksTT Underground Tank FarmXU Unexploded Munitions/Ordnance AreaRW WashrackWL Waste LinesWT Waste Treatment PlantZZ Other

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer D-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)

APPENDIX D

Examples of CompletedRelative Risk Site Evaluation Worksheets

Army Landfill (Page D-3)

Navy Fire Training Area (Page D-6)

Air Force Landfill (Page D-13)

Note: Primer users are encouraged to read through the following example siteevaluations. They illustrate the type/nature of documentation to beincluded on worksheets, and provide example language that should beincluded as rationale for MPF and RF factor ratings.

Exa

mp

le 1

Pag

e 1

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

RE

LA

TIV

E R

ISK

SIT

E E

VA

LU

AT

ION

WO

RK

SH

EE

T

SIT

E1

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

Inst

alla

tion

/Pro

pert

y N

ame

for

FU

DS:

Exa

mpl

e A

rmy

Bas

eD

ate

Ent

ered

/Upd

ated

(da

y, m

onth

,ye

ar):

15 J

une

1994

Loc

atio

n (C

ity/

Cou

nty

Stat

e):

Nor

th C

ity, W

ashi

ngto

nM

edia

Eva

luat

ed (G

W, S

W, S

edim

ent,

Soil,

Sed

. Eco

., So

il E

co.):

GW

Site

(Nam

e/D

SER

TS

ID)/

Pro

ject

(Nam

e/P

roje

ct N

o.) f

orF

UD

S:L

andf

ill 5

, AB

CD

EFG

HIJ

KL

Pha

se o

f E

xecu

tion

(SI

, RI,

FS,

EE

/CA

, IR

A, R

D/R

A, o

r e

quiv

. RC

RA

Stag

e):

RD

Poi

nt o

f C

onta

ct (

Nam

e/P

hone

):J.

Joh

nson

Agr

eem

ent

Stat

us (

ente

r ap

prop

riat

e D

ER

P S

ite

code

):A

SIT

E S

UM

MA

RY

(Inc

lude

onl

y th

e ke

y el

emen

ts o

f in

form

atio

n us

ed to

con

duct

the

rela

tive

ris

k si

te e

valu

atio

n. A

ttac

h m

ap v

iew

of

site

if d

esir

ed.)

Bri

ef S

ite

Des

crip

tion

(in

clud

e si

te t

ype,

mat

eria

ls d

ispo

sed

of, d

ates

of

oper

atio

n, a

nd o

ther

rel

evan

t in

form

atio

n):

60

acre

land

fill

ope

rate

d fr

om 1

967

thro

ugh

1990

. M

ater

ials

dis

pose

d of

incl

ude

som

e 77

,000

tons

of m

ixed

mun

icip

al s

olid

was

te, 1

88,0

00 c

ubic

yar

ds o

f dem

olit

ion

was

te ,

and

dew

ater

ed s

ludg

e fr

om a

nea

rby

sew

age

trea

tmen

t pla

nt.

Lan

dfil

l mat

eria

ls w

ere

buri

ed in

tren

ches

and

cov

ered

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

Stat

e st

anda

rds.

Gro

undw

ater

is c

onta

min

ated

wit

h vo

lati

le o

rgan

ic c

ompo

unds

; su

rfac

e w

ater

sam

plin

g re

veal

ed n

o co

ntam

inat

ion;

soi

l sam

plin

g w

asde

emed

unn

eces

sary

bec

ause

the

land

fill

cap

pre

clud

es d

irec

t exp

osur

e to

sub

surf

ace

soil

s.

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f P

athw

ays

(Gro

undw

ater

, Soi

l, Su

rfac

e W

ater

[H

uman

], S

urfa

ce W

ater

[E

colo

gica

l], S

edim

ent

[Hum

an],

Sed

imen

t [E

colo

gica

l]):

Sit

e is

und

erla

in b

y a

seri

es o

f gla

cial

and

inte

rgla

cial

dep

osit

s. T

he u

pper

mos

t aqu

ifer

, in

whi

ch th

e gr

ound

wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n is

foun

d, c

onsi

sts

of s

and,

gra

vel a

nd g

laci

al ti

ll.

It is

sep

arat

ed fr

om th

e lo

wer

, con

fine

d, s

and

and

grav

elaq

uife

r by

fine

san

ds a

nd s

ilty

cla

ys.

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f R

ecep

tors

(H

uman

and

Eco

logi

cal)

: G

roun

dwat

er fr

om th

e up

per

aqui

fer

is u

sed

as th

e w

ater

sup

ply

for

the

near

by to

wn.

All

wat

er s

uppl

y w

ells

are

upg

radi

ent f

rom

the

site

,w

ith

the

near

est w

ater

sup

ply

4,00

0 fe

et u

pgra

dien

t. G

roun

dwat

er in

the

imm

edia

te v

icin

ity

of th

e si

te a

nd d

owng

radi

ent f

rom

the

site

is n

ot u

sed

for

dom

esti

c or

agr

icul

tura

l pur

pose

s. L

ocal

Tri

bes

cond

uct s

alm

on fi

shin

g in

Suq

ua C

reek

and

in th

e B

ay.

Seve

ral b

ase

empl

oyee

s w

ork

adja

cent

to th

e w

est e

dge

of th

e la

ndfi

ll, b

ut n

o on

e re

side

s or

wor

ks in

the

land

fill

are

a.

1 The

term

Sit

e is

def

ined

as

a di

scre

te a

rea

for

whi

ch s

uspe

cted

con

tam

inat

ion

has

been

ver

ifie

d an

d re

quir

es f

urth

er r

espo

nse

acti

on.

A S

ite

by d

efin

itio

n ha

s be

en, o

r w

ill b

e, e

nter

ed in

toR

MIS

/DSE

RT

S. F

or th

e FU

DS

Prog

ram

, "pr

ojec

ts"

equa

tes

to s

ites

for

curr

ent i

nsta

llatio

ns.

Exa

mp

le 1

Pag

e 2

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

2

HA

ZA

RD

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ylen

e ca

6.8

4.6

1.48

FA

CT

OR

11,

2-D

ichl

oroe

thyl

ene(

cis)

nc3.

361

0.05

(CH

F)

Vin

yl C

hlor

ide

ca3.

22.

01.

60T

olue

nenc

16.0

720

0.02

Man

gane

senc

10,7

0018

059

.44

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

___

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)

X

1 E

valu

ate

for

hum

an c

onta

min

ants

onl

y2

Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al62

.59

Min

imal

(if

Tot

al <

2)__

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

is m

ovin

g or

has

mov

ed a

way

fro

m t

he s

ourc

e ar

eaP

oten

tial

- C

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

), c

ould

mov

ebu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suff

icie

nt to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s th

at th

e po

tent

ial f

orco

ntam

inan

t mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce v

ia th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

lim

ited

(du

e to

geo

logi

cal s

truc

ture

s or

phy

sica

l con

trol

s)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

Pot

enti

al

X

Con

fine

d___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Mon

itor

ing

wel

l dat

a sh

ow v

ery

loca

lize

d co

ntam

inan

t mig

rati

on n

ot e

xten

ding

bey

ond

the

sour

ce b

ound

ary.

GW

grad

ient

is n

earl

y fl

at.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

The

re is

a th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y do

wng

radi

ent o

fth

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is a

cur

rent

sou

rce

of d

rink

ing

wat

er o

r so

urce

of

wat

er f

or o

ther

ben

efic

ial

uses

suc

h as

irri

gati

on/a

gric

ultu

re (

equi

vale

nt to

Cla

ss I

or

IIA

aqu

ifer

)

Pot

enti

al -

The

re is

no

thre

aten

ed w

ater

sup

ply

wel

ldo

wng

radi

ent o

f th

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is c

urre

ntly

or p

oten

tial

ly u

sabl

e fo

r dr

inki

ng w

ater

, irr

igat

ion,

or

agri

cult

ure,

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

I, I

IA, o

r II

B a

quif

er)

Lim

ited

- T

here

is n

o po

tent

iall

y th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y w

ell

dow

ngra

dien

t of

the

sour

ce a

nd th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

not

cons

ider

ed a

pot

enti

al s

ourc

e of

dri

nkin

g w

ater

and

is o

fli

mit

ed b

enef

icia

l use

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

III

A o

r II

IBaq

uife

r, o

r w

here

per

ched

aqu

ifer

exi

sts

only

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed__

_

Pot

enti

al

X

Lim

ited

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Gro

undw

ater

dow

ngra

dien

t of s

ite

is n

ot c

urre

ntly

use

d, b

ut w

ater

is p

oten

tial

ly u

sabl

e.

Gro

un

dw

ater

Cat

egor

yM

ediu

m

(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

Sequa Lake

Lake

Town

N

Roads

Landfill

Sequa Creek

MilitaryPost

Example 1. Map View of Landfill and Vicinity at Example Army Base

Town

Interstate Highway

BAY

Exa

mp

le 2

Pag

e 1

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

RE

LA

TIV

E R

ISK

SIT

E E

VA

LU

AT

ION

WO

RK

SH

EE

T

SIT

E1

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

Inst

alla

tion

/Pro

pert

y N

ame

for

FU

DS:

Exa

mpl

e N

avy

Bas

eD

ate

Ent

ered

/Upd

ated

(da

y, m

onth

, yea

r):

15 J

une

1994

Loc

atio

n (C

ity/

Cou

nty

Stat

e):

Sout

h C

ity, N

ew J

erse

yM

edia

Eva

luat

ed (G

W, S

W, S

edim

ent,

Soil,

Sed

. Eco

., So

il E

co.):

AL

LSi

te (N

ame/

DSE

RT

S ID

)/P

roje

ct (

Nam

e/P

roje

ct N

o.)

for

FU

DS:

Site

000

14P

hase

of

Exe

cuti

on (

SI, R

I, F

S, E

E/C

A, I

RA

, RD

/RA

, or

equ

iv. R

CR

A S

tage

):R

D

Poi

nt o

f C

onta

ct (

Nam

e/P

hone

):P.

Jac

kson

Agr

eem

ent

Stat

us (

ente

r ap

prop

riat

e D

ER

P S

ite

code

):A

SIT

E S

UM

MA

RY

(Inc

lude

onl

y th

e ke

y el

emen

ts o

f in

form

atio

n us

ed to

con

duct

the

rela

tive

ris

k si

te e

valu

atio

n. A

ttac

h m

ap v

iew

of

site

if d

esir

ed.)

Bri

ef S

ite

Des

crip

tion

(in

clud

e si

te t

ype,

mat

eria

ls d

ispo

sed

of, d

ates

of

oper

atio

n, a

nd o

ther

rel

evan

t in

form

atio

n):

1.5

acr

e fi

re fi

ghti

ng tr

aini

ng a

rea

whi

ch w

as in

use

196

5-19

78.

Was

te o

ils,

fuel

s an

d so

lven

ts w

ere

rele

ased

. T

he fi

re tr

aini

ng a

rea

is s

urro

unde

d by

a fe

nce

and

acce

ss is

res

tric

ted.

Con

tam

inat

ion

was

foun

d in

gro

undw

ater

, soi

ls, s

urfa

ce w

ater

and

sed

imen

t.

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f P

athw

ays

(Gro

undw

ater

, Soi

l, Su

rfac

e W

ater

[H

uman

], S

urfa

ce W

ater

[E

colo

gica

l], S

edim

ent

[Hum

an],

Sed

imen

t [E

colo

gica

l]):

The

sit

e is

und

erla

in b

y 15

0 fe

et o

f san

din

whi

ch a

gro

undw

ater

plu

me

has

been

iden

tifi

ed s

ever

al h

undr

ed y

ards

dow

ngra

dien

t of t

he s

ite.

Sur

face

dra

inag

e fr

om th

e si

te le

ads

to a

larg

e la

ke.

Con

tam

inan

ts h

ave

been

iden

tifi

ed in

bot

hsu

rfac

e w

ater

and

sed

imen

ts in

the

lake

. T

he s

oils

in th

e fi

re tr

aini

ng a

rea

are

cont

amin

ated

wit

hin

the

fenc

ed-i

n ar

ea.

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f R

ecep

tors

(H

uman

and

Eco

logi

cal)

: G

roun

dwat

er is

use

d fo

r bo

th d

rink

ing

and

live

stoc

k w

ater

ing

poin

ts d

owng

radi

ent f

rom

the

site

. T

he la

ke d

owns

trea

m fr

om th

e si

te is

use

dfo

r re

crea

tion

and

is b

orde

red

by a

Sta

te W

ildl

ife

Ref

uge.

The

sit

e is

in a

rem

ote

area

of t

he b

ase,

acc

ess

is r

estr

icte

d, a

nd th

ere

is n

o ev

iden

ce o

f hum

an a

ctiv

ity

on th

e si

te.

1 The

term

Sit

e is

def

ined

as

a di

scre

te a

rea

for

whi

ch s

uspe

cted

con

tam

inat

ion

has

been

ver

ifie

d an

d re

quir

es f

urth

er r

espo

nse

acti

on.

A S

ite

by d

efin

itio

n ha

s be

en, o

r w

ill b

e, e

nter

ed in

toR

MIS

/DSE

RT

S. F

or th

e FU

DS

Prog

ram

, "pr

ojec

ts"

equa

tes

to s

ites

for

curr

ent i

nsta

llatio

ns.

Exa

mp

le 2

Pag

e 2

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

2

HA

ZA

RD

Ben

zene

ca13

039

3.3

FA

CT

OR

11,

1 di

chlo

roet

hlye

neca

2400

4.6

521.

7

(CH

F)

Vin

yl C

hlor

ide

ca20

002.

010

00.0

Lea

dnc

864.

021

.5(P

lace

an

“X”

next

to

one

belo

w)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

X

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

__

1 E

valu

ate

for

hum

an c

onta

min

ants

onl

y2

Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al15

46.5

Min

imal

(if

Tot

al <

2)__

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

is m

ovin

g or

has

mov

ed a

way

fro

m t

he s

ourc

e ar

eaP

oten

tial

- C

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

), c

ould

mov

ebu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suff

icie

nt to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s th

at th

e po

tent

ial f

orco

ntam

inan

t mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce v

ia th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

lim

ited

(du

e to

geo

logi

cal s

truc

ture

s or

phy

sica

l con

trol

s)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

X

Pot

enti

al__

_

Con

fine

d___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Mon

itor

ing

data

indi

cate

pre

senc

e of

gro

undw

ater

plu

me

seve

ral h

undr

ed y

ards

dow

ngra

dien

t of s

ourc

e ar

ea

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

The

re is

a th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y do

wng

radi

ent o

fth

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is a

cur

rent

sou

rce

of d

rink

ing

wat

er o

r so

urce

of

wat

er f

or o

ther

ben

efic

ial

uses

suc

h as

irri

gati

on/a

gric

ultu

re (

equi

vale

nt to

Cla

ss I

or

IIA

aqu

ifer

)

Pot

enti

al -

The

re is

no

thre

aten

ed w

ater

sup

ply

wel

ldo

wng

radi

ent o

f th

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is c

urre

ntly

or p

oten

tial

ly u

sabl

e fo

r dr

inki

ng w

ater

, irr

igat

ion,

or

agri

cult

ure,

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

I, I

IA, o

r II

B a

quif

er)

Lim

ited

- T

here

is n

o po

tent

iall

y th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y w

ell

dow

ngra

dien

t of

the

sour

ce a

nd th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

not

cons

ider

ed a

pot

enti

al s

ourc

e of

dri

nkin

g w

ater

and

is o

fli

mit

ed b

enef

icia

l use

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

III

A o

r II

IBaq

uife

r, o

r w

here

per

ched

aqu

ifer

exi

sts

only

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed

X

Pot

enti

al__

_

Lim

ited

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

A m

unic

ipal

wel

lfie

ld is

loca

ted

appr

oxim

atel

y 1/

3 m

ile

dow

ngra

dien

t

Gro

un

dw

ater

Cat

egor

yH

igh

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

Exa

mp

le 2

Pag

e 3

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SU

RF

AC

E W

AT

ER

/HU

MA

N E

ND

PO

INT

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

Lea

dnc

824.

020

.5

FA

CT

OR

14-

4’-D

DE

ca0.

1720

<.1

(CH

F)

4-m

ethy

lphe

nol

nc2

180

<.1

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

__

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)

X

1 R

atio

= M

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

/Com

pari

son

Val

ue20

.5M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

___

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

X

Pot

enti

al__

_

Con

fine

d___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Con

tam

inat

ion

was

foun

d in

sur

face

wat

er s

ever

al h

undr

ed y

ards

dow

nstr

eam

of t

he s

ite.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed

X

Pot

enti

al__

_

Lim

ited

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

A r

ecre

atio

nal l

ake

is lo

cate

d do

wns

trea

m o

f the

sit

e.

Su

rfac

e W

ater

/Hu

man

En

dp

oin

t C

ateg

ory

Hig

h

(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

Exa

mp

le 2

Pag

e 4

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SE

DIM

EN

T/H

UM

AN

EN

DP

OIN

T

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(m

g/kg

)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(m

g/kg

)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

4-4’

-DD

Eca

270

130

2.1

FA

CT

OR

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

_ X _

__

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al2.

1M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

____

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

_ X _

_

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

edim

ent i

s li

mit

ed to

are

as im

med

iate

ly d

owns

trea

m o

f the

sit

e an

d is

not

ext

ensi

ve.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

____

Pot

enti

al _

__

X

__

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

A r

ecre

atio

nal l

ake

is lo

cate

d do

wns

trea

m o

f the

sit

e; th

ere

is a

pot

enti

al fo

r hu

man

s to

acc

ess

the

area

of s

edim

ent

cont

amin

atio

n, b

ut th

is w

ould

be

unli

kely

sin

ce r

ecre

atio

nal a

ctiv

itie

s ar

e si

gnif

ican

tly

dow

nstr

eam

.

Sed

imen

t/H

um

an E

nd

poi

nt

Cat

egor

yM

ediu

m(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

Exa

mp

le 2

Pag

e 5

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SU

RF

AC

E W

AT

ER

/EC

OL

OG

ICA

L E

ND

PO

INT

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

Lea

d nc

823.

225

.6F

AC

TO

R4-

4’-D

DE

ca0.

17N

ot E

valu

ated

-(C

HF

)4-

met

hylp

heno

lnc

2N

ot E

valu

ated

-

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

__

X

__

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al25

.6M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

____

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

__

X _

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Con

tam

inat

ion

was

foun

d in

sur

face

wat

er s

ever

al h

undr

ed y

ards

dow

nstr

eam

of t

he s

ite.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

__

X

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

A S

tate

Wil

dlif

e R

efug

e is

loca

ted

dow

nstr

eam

of t

he s

ite.

Su

rfac

e W

ater

/Eco

logi

cal

En

dp

oin

t C

ateg

ory

Hig

h(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

Exa

mp

le 2

Pag

e 6

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SE

DIM

EN

T/E

CO

LO

GIC

AL

EN

DP

OIN

T

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

unit

sC

ompa

riso

n V

alue

unit

Rat

io1

HA

ZA

RD

4-4’

-DD

Eca

0.27

0m

g/kg

.005

mg/

kgg

54

FA

CT

OR

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

_ X _

_

Min

imal

(if

Tot

al <

2)__

___

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al54

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

_ X _

__

Con

fine

d __

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

edim

ent i

s li

mte

d to

are

as im

med

iate

ly d

owns

trea

m o

f the

sit

e an

d is

not

ext

ensi

ve.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

ant h

as m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inan

t has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

ant h

as m

oved

or

can

mov

e

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

__

X

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

A S

tate

Wil

dlif

e R

efug

e is

loca

ted

dow

nstr

eam

of t

he s

ite.

Sed

imen

t/E

colo

gica

l E

nd

poi

nt

Cat

egor

yH

igh

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

Exa

mp

le 2

Pag

e 7

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SO

IL*

Con

tam

inan

tC

onta

min

ant

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on (

mg/

kg)

Com

pari

son

Val

ue (

mg/

kg)

Rat

io2

HA

ZA

RD

Lea

dnc

254

400

0.64

FA

CT

OR

14-

4’ D

DD

ca23

019

01.

21

(CH

F)

Xyl

enes

5399

00.

05C

hlor

ofor

mca

453

0.08

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

___

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

__

1 E

valu

ate

for

hum

an c

onta

min

ants

onl

y2

Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al1.

98M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

X

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

that

cont

amin

atio

n is

pre

sent

at,

is m

ovin

g to

war

d, o

r ha

s m

oved

to a

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re

Pot

enti

al -

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

), c

ould

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

gap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suf

fici

ent t

o m

ake

ade

term

inat

ion

of E

vide

nt o

r C

onfi

ned

Con

fine

d -

Low

pos

sibi

lity

for

con

tam

inat

ion

to b

e pr

esen

t at o

rm

igra

te to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

)___

Pot

enti

al

X

Con

fine

d___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

No

dire

ct e

vide

nce

of c

onfi

nem

ent o

f soi

l

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

toco

ntam

inat

ed s

oil

Pot

enti

al -

Pot

enti

al f

or r

ecep

tors

to h

ave

acce

ss to

cont

amin

ated

soi

l

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

toco

ntam

inat

ed s

oil

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed__

_

Pot

enti

al__

_

Lim

ited

X

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Res

tric

ted

area

in r

emot

e po

rtio

n of

bas

e

So

il C

ate

go

ryL

ow

(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

* S

oil s

ampl

es s

houl

d be

fro

m a

dep

th o

f 0–

6 in

ches

. If

sam

ples

are

not

ava

ilab

le f

rom

the

0–6

inch

inte

rval

, res

ults

fro

m d

epth

s up

to, b

ut n

ot e

xcee

ding

, 24

inch

es c

an b

e us

ed.

Exa

mp

le 3

Pag

e 1

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

RE

LA

TIV

E R

ISK

SIT

E E

VA

LU

AT

ION

WO

RK

SH

EE

T

SIT

E1

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

Inst

alla

tion

/Pro

pert

y N

ame

for

FU

DS:

Exa

mpl

e A

ir F

orce

Bas

eD

ate

Ent

ered

/Upd

ated

(da

y, m

onth

, yea

r):

15 J

une

1994

Loc

atio

n (C

ity/

Cou

nty

Stat

e):

Mid

dle

City

, Geo

rgia

Med

ia E

valu

ated

(GW

, SW

, Sed

imen

t, So

il, S

ed. E

co, S

oil E

co):

AL

LSi

te (

Nam

e/D

SER

TS

ID)/

Pro

ject

(Nam

e/P

roje

ct N

o.) f

orF

UD

S:L

andf

ill 4

, BC

CD

DE

EFH

HIJ

Pha

se o

f E

xecu

tion

(SI

, RI,

FS,

EE

/CA

, IR

A, R

D/R

A, o

r e

quiv

. RC

RA

Stag

e):

RD

Poi

nt o

f C

onta

ct (

Nam

e/P

hone

):R

. Ham

mon

dA

gree

men

t St

atus

(E

nter

app

ropr

iate

DE

RP

Sit

e co

de):

A

SIT

E S

UM

MA

RY

(Inc

lude

onl

y th

e ke

y el

emen

ts o

f in

form

atio

n us

ed to

con

duct

the

rela

tive

ris

k si

te e

valu

atio

n. A

ttac

h m

ap v

iew

of

site

if d

esir

ed.)

Bri

ef S

ite

Des

crip

tion

(in

clud

e si

te t

ype,

mat

eria

ls d

ispo

sed

of, d

ates

of

oper

atio

n, a

nd o

ther

rel

evan

t in

form

atio

n):

45

acre

land

fill

and

ass

ocia

ted

1.5

acre

slu

dge

lago

on o

pera

ted

from

196

2-19

78.

Mat

eria

ls d

ispo

sed

of in

clud

e ge

nera

l ref

use,

was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t pla

nt s

ludg

e, e

lect

ropl

atin

g w

aste

s, o

rgan

ic s

olve

nts

from

cle

anin

g op

erat

ions

, and

pes

tici

des.

Vol

atil

e or

gani

c co

mpo

unds

and

met

als

dete

cted

in g

roun

dwat

er a

nd s

urfa

ce s

oil/

slud

ge s

ampl

es;

low

er le

vels

of m

etal

s al

so d

etec

ted

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

and

sed

imen

t sam

ples

in a

djac

ent d

rain

age

ditc

h.

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f P

athw

ays

(Gro

undw

ater

, Soi

l, Su

rfac

e W

ater

[H

uman

], S

urfa

ce W

ater

[E

colo

gica

l], S

edim

ent

[Hum

an],

Sed

imen

t [E

colo

gica

l]):

Sit

e ha

s a

vege

tati

ve c

over

. U

nder

lain

by a

lluv

ial a

quif

er a

nd d

eepe

r gr

avel

ly a

nd s

ilty

san

d aq

uife

r, b

oth

of w

hich

rev

eal c

onta

min

ant m

igra

tion

(e.

g., T

CE

and

lead

) no

rthe

ast a

nd e

ast o

f con

tam

inat

ion

sour

ces.

A m

ound

ed w

ater

tabl

eha

s be

en e

stab

lish

ed w

ithi

n th

e la

ndfi

ll d

ue to

infi

ltra

tion

. R

unof

f fro

m la

ndfi

ll fl

ows

to d

rain

age

ditc

h th

at is

par

t of a

n op

erat

ing

and

com

plia

nt n

on-p

oint

-sou

rce

runo

ff c

olle

ctio

n sy

stem

at t

he b

ase.

Dra

inag

e di

tch

flow

s to

set

tlin

g ba

sin.

Ove

rflo

w fr

om s

ettl

ing

basi

n dr

ains

to w

etla

nds

and

cree

k to

the

east

. D

rain

age

ditc

h se

dim

ents

and

loca

l are

as o

f sta

ndin

g w

ater

alo

ng th

e di

tch

upg

radi

ent

of th

e se

ttli

ng b

asin

hav

e be

en im

pact

ed fr

om c

onta

min

ant m

igra

tion

. Sa

mpl

es s

how

no

surf

ace

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent c

onta

min

atio

n be

yond

set

tlin

g ba

sin.

Bri

ef D

escr

ipti

on o

f R

ecep

tors

(H

uman

and

Eco

logi

cal)

: G

roun

dwat

er in

the

vici

nity

of t

he s

ite

is C

lass

III

A a

nd is

not

use

d fo

r do

mes

tic

or a

gric

ultu

ral p

urpo

ses.

Acc

ess

to th

e si

te is

res

tric

ted

bya

lock

ed g

ate

and

fenc

e at

the

land

fill

ent

ranc

e. H

uman

s co

uld

have

acc

ess

to th

e dr

aina

ge d

itch

are

a, th

ough

acc

ess

to th

is a

reas

is li

mit

ed b

y w

etla

nds.

A p

orti

on o

f the

dra

inag

e di

tch

beyo

nd th

ese

ttli

ng p

ond

lead

s th

roug

h cr

itic

al h

abit

at fo

r an

end

ange

red

spec

ies

to a

cre

ek w

hich

is a

lso

part

of t

he c

riti

cal h

abit

at.

1 The

term

Sit

e is

def

ined

as

a di

scre

te a

rea

for

whi

ch s

uspe

cted

con

tam

inat

ion

has

been

ver

ifie

d an

d re

quir

es f

urth

er r

espo

nse

acti

on.

A S

ite

by d

efin

itio

n ha

s be

en, o

r w

ill b

e, e

nter

ed in

toR

MIS

/DSE

RT

S. F

or th

e FU

DS

Prog

ram

, "pr

ojec

ts"

equa

tes

to s

ites

for

curr

ent i

nsta

llatio

ns.

Exa

mp

le 3

Pag

e 2

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

2

HA

ZA

RD

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ylen

e (c

is)

nc19

,000

6131

1

FA

CT

OR

1T

CE

ca21

,000

160

131

(CH

F)

Vin

yl C

hlor

ide

ca6,

700

233

50C

rnc

2,70

018

015

Pbnc

5,24

04

1310

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

X

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

__

1 E

valu

ate

for

hum

an c

onta

min

ants

onl

y2

Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al51

17M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

___

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

is m

ovin

g or

has

mov

ed a

way

fro

m t

he s

ourc

e ar

eaP

oten

tial

- C

onta

min

atio

n in

the

grou

ndw

ater

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

), c

ould

mov

ebu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suff

icie

nt to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s th

at th

e po

tent

ial f

orco

ntam

inan

t mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce v

ia th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

lim

ited

(du

e to

geo

logi

cal s

truc

ture

s or

phy

sica

l con

trol

s)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

X

Pot

enti

al__

_

Con

fine

d___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Mon

itor

ing

wel

l dat

a re

veal

ed d

owng

radi

ent p

lum

e w

ell b

eyon

d so

urce

; se

e m

ap v

iew

and

cro

ss s

ecti

on

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

The

re is

a th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y do

wng

radi

ent o

fth

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is a

cur

rent

sou

rce

of d

rink

ing

wat

er o

r so

urce

of

wat

er f

or o

ther

ben

efic

ial

uses

suc

h as

irri

gati

on/a

gric

ultu

re (

equi

vale

nt to

Cla

ss I

or

IIA

aqu

ifer

)

Pot

enti

al -

The

re is

no

thre

aten

ed w

ater

sup

ply

wel

ldo

wng

radi

ent o

f th

e so

urce

and

the

grou

ndw

ater

is c

urre

ntly

or p

oten

tial

ly u

sabl

e fo

r dr

inki

ng w

ater

, irr

igat

ion,

or

agri

cult

ure,

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

I, I

IA, o

r II

B a

quif

er)

Lim

ited

- T

here

is n

o po

tent

iall

y th

reat

ened

wat

er s

uppl

y w

ell

dow

ngra

dien

t of

the

sour

ce a

nd th

e gr

ound

wat

er is

not

cons

ider

ed a

pot

enti

al s

ourc

e of

dri

nkin

g w

ater

and

is o

fli

mit

ed b

enef

icia

l use

(eq

uiva

lent

to C

lass

III

A o

r II

IBaq

uife

r, o

r w

here

per

ched

aqu

ifer

exi

sts

only

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed__

_

Pot

enti

al__

_

Lim

ited

X

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Gro

undw

ater

is C

lass

III

A a

nd is

not

con

side

red

a po

tent

ial s

ourc

e of

wat

er fo

r dr

inki

ng o

r ag

ricu

ltur

al p

urpo

ses

Gro

un

dw

ater

Cat

egor

yM

ediu

m

(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

Exa

mp

le 3

Pag

e 3

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SU

RF

AC

E W

AT

ER

/HU

MA

N E

ND

PO

INT

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

Com

pari

son

Val

ueR

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

Cr

VI

nc1,

390

180

8

FA

CT

OR

1Pb

nc1,

400

435

0

(CH

F)

Cd

nc12

818

7

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

X

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

__

1 R

atio

= M

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

/Com

pari

son

Val

ue36

5M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

___

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

Pot

enti

al__

_

Con

fine

d

X

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Met

als

dete

cted

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

sam

ples

in d

rain

age

ditc

h di

rect

ly a

djac

ent t

o la

ndfi

ll.

The

dit

ch is

par

tof

an

oper

atin

g an

d co

mpl

iant

non

-poi

nt s

ourc

e ru

noff

col

lect

ion

syst

em a

t the

bas

e. S

ampl

es s

how

no

cont

amin

atio

n in

sur

face

wat

er b

eyon

d th

e se

ttli

ng p

ond.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed

___

Pot

enti

al_

X _

Lim

ited

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Hum

ans

coul

d ha

ve a

cces

s to

the

drai

nage

dit

ch a

rea,

thou

gh a

cces

s to

this

are

as is

lim

ited

by

wet

land

s.

Su

rfac

e W

ater

/Hu

man

En

dp

oin

t C

ateg

ory

Med

ium

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

Exa

mp

le 3

Pag

e 4

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SE

DIM

EN

T/H

UM

AN

EN

DP

OIN

T

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(m

g/kg

)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(m

g/kg

)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

Cr

VI

ca88

030

00.2

9F

AC

TO

RPb

nc38

540

00.

96(C

HF

)C

dnc

1038

0.26

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

_ __

_

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al1.

51M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

__ X

__

_

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

X _

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Met

als

dete

cted

in s

edim

ent s

ampl

es in

dra

inag

e di

rect

ly a

djac

ent t

o la

ndfi

ll. T

he d

itch

is p

art o

f an

oper

atin

g an

dco

mpl

iant

non

poin

t sou

rce

runo

ff c

olle

ctio

n sy

stem

at t

he b

ase.

Sam

ples

sho

w n

o co

ntam

inat

ion

in s

edim

ents

bey

ond

the

sett

ling

pon

d.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

__

Pot

enti

al _

_ X _

_

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Hum

ans

coul

d ha

ve a

cces

s to

the

drai

nage

dit

ch a

rea,

thou

gh a

cces

s to

this

are

as is

lim

ited

by

wet

land

s.

Sed

imen

t/H

um

an E

nd

poi

nt

Cat

egor

yL

ow(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

Exa

mp

le 3

Pag

e 5

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SU

RF

AC

E W

AT

ER

/EC

OL

OG

ICA

L E

ND

PO

INT

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

(ug

/l)C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

(ug

/l)R

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

Cr

VI

nc1,

390

1112

6.4

FA

CT

OR

Pbnc

1,40

03.

243

7.5

(CH

F)

Cd

nc12

81.

111

6.4

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

__

X

___

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

____

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al68

0.3

Min

imal

(if

Tot

al <

2)__

___

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

X _

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Met

als

dete

cted

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

sam

ples

in d

rain

age

ditc

h di

rect

ly a

djac

ent t

o la

ndfi

ll. T

he d

itch

is p

art o

f an

oper

atin

gan

d co

mpl

iant

non

-poi

nt s

ourc

e ru

noff

col

lect

ion

syst

em a

t the

bas

e. S

ampl

es s

how

no

cont

amin

atio

n in

sur

face

wat

er b

eyon

d th

e se

ttli

ng p

ond.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

atio

n ha

s m

oved

or c

an m

ove

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

_

X

___

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Ove

rflo

w fr

om s

ettl

ing

pond

flow

s to

cri

tica

l hab

itat

for

an e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s

Su

rfac

e W

ater

/Eco

logi

cal

En

dp

oin

t C

ateg

ory

Med

ium

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

Exa

mp

le 3

Pag

e 6

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SE

DIM

EN

T/E

CO

LO

GIC

AL

EN

DP

OIN

T

CO

NT

AM

INA

NT

Con

tam

inan

tM

ax. C

once

ntra

tion

unit

sC

ompa

riso

n V

alue

unit

sR

atio

1

HA

ZA

RD

Cr

VI

nc88

0m

g/kg

26.0

mg/

kg33

.8F

AC

TO

RPb

nc38

5m

g/kg

31.0

mg/

kg12

.4(C

HF

)C

dnc

10m

g/kg

0.6

mg/

kg16

.7

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sig

nifi

cant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

____

_

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

_ X _

__

Min

imal

(if

Tot

al <

2)__

___

1 Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al62

.9

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

indi

cate

sth

at c

onta

min

atio

n in

the

med

ia is

pre

sent

at,

mov

ing

tow

ard,

or

has

mov

ed to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

Pot

enti

al -

Con

tam

inat

ion

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

or

sedi

men

t has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

),co

uld

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

g ap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not s

uffi

cien

t to

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Evi

dent

or

Con

fine

d

Con

fine

d -

Info

rmat

ion

indi

cate

s a

low

pot

enti

al f

or c

onta

min

ant

mig

rati

on f

rom

the

sour

ce to

a p

oten

tial

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re(c

ould

be

due

to p

rese

nce

of g

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

or p

hysi

cal

cont

rols

)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

___

__

Pot

enti

al _

____

Con

fine

d __

X _

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Met

als

dete

cted

in s

edim

ent s

ampl

es in

dra

inag

e di

rect

ly a

djac

ent t

o la

ndfi

ll. T

he d

itch

is p

art o

f an

oper

atin

g an

dco

mpl

iant

non

poin

t sou

rce

runo

ff c

olle

ctio

n sy

stem

at t

he b

ase.

Sam

ples

sho

w n

o co

ntam

inat

ion

in s

edim

ents

bey

ond

the

sett

ling

pon

d.

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

to s

urfa

cew

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

ant h

as m

oved

or

can

mov

eP

oten

tial

- P

oten

tial

for

rec

epto

rs t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

sur

face

wat

er o

r se

dim

ent t

o w

hich

con

tam

inan

t has

mov

ed o

r ca

nm

ove

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

tosu

rfac

e w

ater

or

sedi

men

t to

whi

ch c

onta

min

ant h

as m

oved

or

can

mov

e

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed _

_

X

___

Pot

enti

al _

____

Lim

ited

___

__

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Ove

rflo

w fr

om s

ettl

ing

pond

flow

s to

cri

tica

l hab

itat

for

an e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s

Sed

imen

t/E

colo

gica

l E

nd

poi

nt

Cat

egor

yL

ow(H

igh,

Med

ium

, Low

)

Exa

mp

le 3

Pag

e 7

- R

elat

ive

Ris

k S

ite

Eva

luat

ion

Wor

kshe

et

SO

IL*

Con

tam

inan

tC

onta

min

ant

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on (

mg/

kg)

Com

pari

son

Val

ue (

mg/

kg)

Rat

io2

HA

ZA

RD

Cr

nc15

330

000.

05

FA

CT

OR

1Pb

nc12

240

00.

3

(CH

F)

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Sign

ific

ant

(if

Tot

al >

100)

___

Mod

erat

e (i

f T

otal

2-1

00)_

__

1 E

valu

ate

for

hum

an c

onta

min

ants

onl

y2

Rat

io =

Max

. Con

cent

rati

on/C

ompa

riso

n V

alue

Tot

al0.

35M

inim

al (

if T

otal

<2)

X

MIG

RA

TIO

NP

AT

HW

AY

FA

CT

OR

(MP

F)

Evi

dent

- A

naly

tica

l dat

a or

obs

erva

ble

evid

ence

that

cont

amin

atio

n is

pre

sent

at,

is m

ovin

g to

war

d, o

r ha

s m

oved

to a

poi

nt o

f ex

posu

re

Pot

enti

al -

con

tam

inat

ion

has

mov

ed o

nly

slig

htly

bey

ond

the

sour

ce (

i.e.,

tens

of

feet

), c

ould

mov

e bu

t is

not m

ovin

gap

prec

iabl

y, o

r in

form

atio

n is

not

suf

fici

ent t

o m

ake

ade

term

inat

ion

of E

vide

nt o

r C

onfi

ned

Con

fine

d -

Low

pos

sibi

lity

for

con

tam

inat

ion

to b

e pr

esen

t at o

rm

igra

te to

a p

oint

of

expo

sure

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Evi

dent

)

X

Pot

enti

al__

_

Con

fine

d___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Met

als

have

bee

n de

tect

ed in

sur

face

soi

l/sl

udge

sam

ples

out

side

land

fill

per

imet

er

RE

CE

PT

OR

FA

CT

OR

(RF

)

Iden

tifi

ed -

Rec

epto

rs id

enti

fied

that

hav

e ac

cess

toco

ntam

inat

ed s

oil

Pot

enti

al -

Pot

enti

al f

or r

ecep

tors

to h

ave

acce

ss to

cont

amin

ated

soi

l

Lim

ited

- L

ittl

e or

no

pote

ntia

l for

rec

epto

rs to

hav

e ac

cess

toco

ntam

inat

ed s

oil

(Pla

ce a

n “X

” ne

xt t

o on

e be

low

)

Iden

tifi

ed__

_

Pot

enti

al

X

Lim

ited

___

Bri

ef R

atio

nale

for

Sel

ecti

on:

Hum

an r

ecep

tors

cou

ld h

ave

acce

ss to

con

tam

inat

ed s

oil b

eyon

d th

e fe

nced

are

a

So

il C

ate

go

ryM

ediu

m

(Hig

h, M

ediu

m, L

ow)

* S

oil s

ampl

es s

houl

d be

fro

m a

dep

th o

f 0–

6 in

ches

. If

sam

ples

are

not

ava

ilab

le f

rom

the

0–6

inch

inte

rval

, res

ults

fro

m d

epth

s up

to, b

ut n

ot e

xcee

ding

, 24

inch

es c

an b

e us

ed.

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)

APPENDIX E

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Fact Sheet

Relative Risk Question-and-Answer Fact Sheet

Briefing Charts for Presentation/Training


Introduction

The Department of Defense (DoD) considersenvironmental restoration as an integralpart of its daily mission activities. Atinstallations around the country,environmental restoration activities areunderway to address contamination resultingfrom past DoD operations. Environmentalanalysis and cleanup activities address a widevariety of sites contaminated with fuels,solvents, chemicals, heavy metals, andcommon industrial materials.

Given the large number of sites to be addressedand limitations on money and people to workon these sites each year, DoD believes that arisk-based approach should be applied to worksequencing at active military installations, BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC) installations,and formerly used defense properties usingrelative risk as a key factor. The relative risksite evaluation framework described in this factsheet provides a means of helping accomplishthis objective.

The framework for evaluating site relativerisk was published in September 1994, in theRelative Risk Site Evaluation Primer (InterimEdition) which contained instructions forperforming relative risk site evaluations atsites across DoD. A revised edition of thePrimer was issued in June 1996.

Definition of Relative Risk Site Evaluation

The relative risk site evaluation framework isa methodology used by all DoD Componentsto evaluate the relative risk posed by a site inrelation to other sites. It is a tool used acrossall of DoD to group sites into high, medium,and low categories based on an evaluation ofsite information using three factors: thecontaminant hazard factor (CHF), themigration pathway factor (MPF), and thereceptor factor (RF). Factors are based on aquantitative evaluation of contaminants and aqualitative evaluation of pathways and humanand ecological receptors in the four mediamost likely to result in significant exposuregroundwater, surface water, sediment, andsurface soils. A representation of thisevaluation concept is presented in Figures 1and 2. Figure 1 also depicts possibleopportunities for stakeholder input into thetechnical evaluation.

The relative risk site evaluation framework isa qualitative and easy to understand method–ology for evaluating the relative risks posed bysites and should not be equated with more formalrisk assessments conducted to assess baselinerisks posed by sites. It is a tool to assist insequencing environmental restoration work (i.e.,known requirements such as remedialinvestigation or cleanup actions) to be done by aDoD Component. It is designed to handle thebroad range of sites that exist at DoDinstallations and the broad range of dataavailable. The grouping of sites into high,


XXXXXX

Sites

Contaminant Hazard Factor

Migration Pathway Factor

Receptor Factor

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Regulator and Public Stakeholder Involvement in Technical Evaluation

Sites* at each

Installation**

Data Assembly***

Evaluation Factors

Relative Risk

Categories

Source

Pathways

Receptors

*Sites for current DoD installations equate with "Projects" in the Formerly Utilized Defense Sites (FUDS) Program **Installations equate with "properties" in the FUDS Program ***Data assembled by environmental medium

Figure 1. Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Summary

CHF = Contaminant Hazard Factor MPF = Migration Pathway Factor RF = Receptor Factor *Includes human and ecological endpoints

Groundwater

Surface Water and Sediment*

Soil

Site Information

CHF MPF RF Category

CHF MPF RF Category

CHF MPF RF Category

MEDIA EVALUATION FACTORS

(High, Medium, Low)

(High, Medium, Low)

(High, Medium, Low)

MEDIA-SPECIFIC RELATIVE RISK RATING

Overall Site Category--

High, Medium, or Low

SELECT HIGHEST MEDIA RATING

Figure 2. Flow Diagram of the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework


medium, or low relative risk categories isnot a substitute for either a baseline riskassessment or health assessment; it is not ameans of placing sites into a ResponseComplete/No Further Action category; andit is not a tool for justifying a particulartype of action (e.g., the selection of aremedy).

Use of the relative risk site evaluationframework is restricted to environmentalrestoration sites and does not extend tounexploded ordnance (UXO) removal,building demolition/debris removal(BD/DR), potentially responsible party(PRP) activities, or compliance activities.

Relative Risk and Funding Decisions

Relative risk is not the sole factor indetermining the sequence of environmentalrestoration work, but it is an importantconsideration in the priority setting process.It should be factored into all priority settingdecisions, and should be discussed withregulators and public stakeholders in theenvironmental restoration process.

The actual funding priority for a site isidentified after relative risk information iscombined with other important riskmanagement considerations (e.g., thestatutory and regulatory status of aparticular installation or site, publicstakeholder concerns, program executionconsiderations, and economic factors).These additional risk managementconsiderations can result in a decision tofund work at a site that is not classified asa high relative risk. DoD Componentshave each developed guidelines forcombining relative risk and riskmanagement considerations as part oftheir planning, programming, andbudgeting process.

The relative risk site evaluationframework does not address the questionof whether work is necessary at a site; itonly provides information for use inhelping to determine the general sequencein which sites will be addressed. At theDoD headquarters level, it also provides aframework for planning, programming,

and budgeting requirements, a topicdiscussed below.

Requirements for Relative Risk SiteEvaluations

Relative risk site evaluations are requiredfor all sites at active militaryinstallations, BRAC installations, andformerly used defense properties thathave future funding requirements that arenot classified as (1) having “all remediesin place,” (2) ”response complete,”(3) lacking sufficient information, or(4) abandoned ordnance. These foursituations are discussed in the followingfour paragraphs.

Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified as havingall remedies in place (RIP) even thoughthey may be in remedial action operation(RAO) or long-term monitoring (LTM). ARIP determination requires that remedialaction construction is complete for a site.

Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified asresponse complete (RC). Sites classified asRC are those where a DoD Componentdeems that no further action (NFA) isrequired with the possible exception ofLTM. An RC determination requires thatone of the following apply: (1) there is noevidence that contaminants were releasedat the site, (2) no contaminants weredetected at the site other than atbackground concentrations,(3) contaminants attributable to the site arebelow action levels used for risk screening,(4) the results of a baseline risk assessmentdemonstrate that cumulative risks posed bythe site are below established thresholds, or(5) removal and/or remedial actionoperations (RAOs) at a site have beenimplemented, completed, and are the finalaction for the site. Only LTM remains.

Relative risk site evaluations should bebased on the information currentlyavailable on contaminants, migrationpathways, and receptors. Sites lackingsufficient information for the conduct of a


relative risk site evaluation should be givena “Not Evaluated” designation and shouldthen be programmed for additional study, aremoval action if warranted, or otherappropriate response action, includingdeferral, before they are evaluated.

Sites comprised solely of abandonedordnance are not subject to the relativerisk site evaluation described in thisPrimer. Such sites should be evaluatedusing a separate risk procedure, which isdiscussed in the management guidancecited above (Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense [Environmental Security],1994).

Implementation of the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Framework

DoD’s goal is to conduct relative risk siteevaluations at the field level with theinvolvement of the regulators and publicstakeholders (see Figure 1). The technicalevaluation of sites using the evaluationframework can serve as a basis fordiscussion and negotiation with regulatorsand public stakeholders. In particular,regulators and public stakeholders can helpidentify receptors, and can makejudgments about the extent ofcontaminant migration in variousenvironmental media at a site. Where theyexist, Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs)are an excellent forum for obtaining publicstakeholder input on these aspects of siterelative risk. Other opportunities forpublic stakeholder involvement may alsobe appropriate. Regulators and publicstakeholders should always be given theopportunity to participate in thedevelopment and review of relative risksite evaluation data before the data is usedin planning and programming.

Management Uses of Relative RiskInformation

DoD and DoD Components are using therelative risk site evaluation framework as atool to help sequence work at sites and as aheadquarters program management tool.As a program management tool, theframework is being used by DoD and DoDComponents to periodically identify thedistribution of sites in each of three

relative risk categories—high, medium,and low. A series of discrete relative risksite evaluations provides headquartersprogram managers with a macro-level viewof changes in relative risk distributionswithin DoD over time.

The relative risk site evaluation frameworkand resulting data also provide DoD with abasis for establishing goals and performancemeasures for the environmental restorationprogram. In this regard, DoD hasestablished goals for all DoD Componentsto reduce relative risk at sites in DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Account(DERA) and BRAC programs or to haveremedial systems in place where necessaryfor these sites, within the context of legalagreements. DoD and DoD Components aretracking progress towards these relative riskreduction goals as one of several programmeasures of merit (MOMs) at theheadquarters level. Another MOM tracksthe number of sites where cleanup actionhas been taken and relative risk has beenreduced in one or more media. Resultantinformation is used to provide thenecessary feedback to develop and adjustprogram requirements and budgetprojections, as well as to assess whetherestablished goals reflect fiscal reality.

For More Information

At the Installation, contact

At DoD Headquarters, contact the Office ofthe Deputy Under Secretary of Defense(Environmental Security - Cleanup) at703/697-7475.


Q.1 How is relative risk information beingused by the Department of Defense(DoD) and military services at the fieldand headquarters levels?

A. Field activities within the DoD userelative risk information as one meansof representing the status of theirenvironmental restoration program toDoD, regulators, and local stakeholders.Information on site relative risk is usedby each military installation or formerlyused defense site, in conjunction withother risk management considerations,to help sequence work at sites in light ofavailable resources within DoD.

Headquarters environmental restorationprogram offices within each militaryservice collect relative risk informationfrom each field activity to identify toCongress, regulators, and otherstakeholders the distribution of sites ineach of three relative risk categories−high, medium, and low. A series ofdiscrete relative risk site evaluationsprovides headquarters programmanagers with a macro-level view ofchanges in relative risk distributionswithin DoD over time. In the event ofbudget cuts or recessions, HeadquartersProgram Offices will consider therelative risk of sites along with otherrisk management considerations in theresultant deferral of projects. In general,low relative risk sites will be deferredbefore medium relative risk sites, and

medium relative risk sites will bedeferred before high relative risk sites.At the installation or field level, specificwork program adjustments will be madeconsidering relative risk and other riskmanagement concerns in the event thatbudget cuts or recessions occur.

Relative risk information will also beused to provide DoD with a basis forestablishing goals and performancemeasures for the environmentalrestoration program. In this regard, DoDhas established goals for all DoDComponents to reduce relative risk atsites or to have remedial systems inplace where necessary for these sites,within the context of legal agreements.Military services and DoD will trackchanges in relative risk towards theserelative risk reduction goals as ameasure of merit (MOM). Relative riskwill not be used to set cleanupstandards, nor will it be used as a basisfor making remedial action decisions,remedy selection decisions, or no furtheraction decisions.

Q.2 How are other risk managementconsiderations taken into account forpriority setting?

A. Relative risk is not the sole factor indetermining the sequence ofenvironmental restoration work, but it isan important consideration in thepriority setting process. It should be


factored into all priority settingdecisions, and should be discussed withregulators and public stakeholders in theenvironmental restoration process.

The actual funding priority for a site isidentified after relative risk informationis combined with other important riskmanagement considerations (e.g., thestatutory and regulatory status of aparticular installation or site, publicstakeholder concerns, programexecution considerations, and economicfactors). These additional riskmanagement considerations can result ina decision to fund work at a site that isnot classified as a high relative risk.Military services have each developedguidelines for combining relative riskand risk management considerations aspart of their planning, programming,and budgeting process.

Q.3 What is the role of the community inevaluating relative risk at sites?

A. Community members of RestorationAdvisory Boards and other members ofthe public participate in the technicalevaluation of relative risk at a variety oflevels depending on their desire forinvolvement. At some installations andformerly used defense sites, communitymembers have received relative risktraining and participate directly in theevaluation of relative risk factors foreach environmental medium at a site. Atother installations and formerly useddefense sites, community membersreview and provide input into relativerisk evaluations prepared by installationpersonnel. DoD intends to increasecommunity input into relative riskevaluations at all installations andformerly used defense sites where thereis sufficient interest. To increasecommunity awareness of and access toguidance on performing relative risk siteevaluations, DoD has placed the

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer onthe DoD Environmental RestorationElectronic Bulletin Board, a WorldWide Web site at http://www.dtic.dla.mil/envirodod/envdocs.html.

Q.4 What is the role of regulatory agenciesin evaluating relative risk at sites?

A. State and federal regulatory agencypersonnel are key participants in therelative risk evaluation process. Theirinvolvement in this process largelydepends on their degree of involvementin an environmental restoration programat a particular installation or formerlyused defense site. At some installationsor formerly used defense sites,regulatory agency personnel havereceived relative risk training andparticipate directly in the evaluation ofrelative risk factors for eachenvironmental medium at a site.Discussions with regulatory agencypersonnel on relative risk at thesetraining sessions and at project teammeetings at installations have provenhelpful in increasing regulatoryacceptance of relative risk. DoD seeksto increase regulatory involvement inrelative risk evaluations at allappropriate installations and formerlyused defense sites.

Q.5 How often will field activities need toconduct relative risk site evaluations?

A. Relative risk at sites should be evaluatedwhenever important new informationabout a site becomes available. DoDwill collect information on site relativerisk from the military services on asemi-annual basis, once in the middle ofthe fiscal year and once at year end.

Q.6 Will progress in the environmentalrestoration program be measured on thebasis of Relative Risk?


A. Yes, for the following reasons. Progressat sites in DERP has traditionally beenmeasured by reporting on the responsestatus of sites at the field andheadquarters level (e.g., number of siteswith responses complete). While thesetraditional measures of progress are stillimportant measures, DoD planningguidance for Fiscal Years (FYs) 1998-2002 establishes goals for all militaryservices to reduce relative risk at sites.The planning guidance specificallyrequires (1) military services toimplement actions that lower relativerisk for all high relative risk withinspecific time frames or have remedialsystems in place where necessary forthese sites, (2) implement actions thatlower relative risk of all mediumrelative risk sites within a specific timeframe or have remedial systems in placewhere necessary for those sites, and (3)implement actions that result in“response complete” for all relative risksites within a set time frame.

Q.7 Does relative risk site evaluation applyto sites at Base Realignment andClosure (BRAC) installations?

A. Yes. DoD planning guidance requiresthat available restoration funds at BRACinstallations be used to implementactions to lower relative risk for all highrelative risk sites within specific timeframes or have remedial systems inplace where necessary for these sites.

Q.8 What is the relationship between theRelative Risk Site EvaluationFramework and risk assessment?

A. Relative risk evaluation and riskassessment share a common conceptualframework, but have significantdifferences in purpose andmethodology. First and foremost,relative risk evaluation is not asubstitute for a risk assessment. It is a

screening-level evaluation of siteinformation at a point in time based onthree factors: the contaminant hazardfactor (CHF), the migration hazardfactor (MPF), and the receptor factor. Interms of hazard assessment, the relativerisk framework uses maximum (worst-case) contaminant data, while riskassessment uses average and/orreasonable maximum concentrations ofcontaminants. For exposure assessment,the relative risk framework relies on aqualitative evaluation of fate andtransport of contaminants away from asource, while risk assessmentemphasizes quantitative predictions ofcontaminant fate and transport. In termsof toxicity assessment, both relative riskand risk assessment use similar data.The relative risk framework usesconcentration standards derived frompreliminary remediation goals that arecalculated using the same toxicity dataused in risk assessment. In terms ofresults, relative risk information is usedat the field level to help sequence workat sites. Risk assessment results aretypically used to determine whether ornot additional response actions arewarranted at a site.

Q.9 Why were the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) preliminary remediationgoals (PRGs) multiplied by 100 forcarcinogens?

A. PRGs are concentrations ofcontaminants in a specific medium thathave been estimated to (1) cause 1excess cancer occurrence per 1,000,000people over the course of a 70-year life-time or (2) cause non-cancer adverseeffects (e.g., birth defects, neurologicalproblems). These values have beencalculated through the use of toxicitydata found in EPA databases and byusing conservative assumptions (e.g., aperson will obtain all water for drinkingand showering over a 30-year period


from the same source). The methodsused by EPA for calculating “safe”doses for cancer-versus-noncancereffects differ dramatically. Noncancereffects have thresholds (levels ofexposure that do not cause toxicity),while cancer effects are not assumed tohave a threshold. The differingassumptions for noncancer and cancereffects mean that respective toxicitiesare handled differently when settingacceptable exposures. For cancer-inducing agents, mathematical formulasare used to determine acceptableexposure levels. For noncancertoxicants, a “reference dose” that isrelated to the threshold is used.Threshold doses are generally muchhigher than are doses that cause 1 in1,000,000 cancer occurrences.

In Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse (OSWER) Directive9355.0-30, dated 22 April 1991, theRole of the Baseline Risk Assessment inSuperfund Remedy Selection Decisions,EPA states that action is generally notwarranted if reasonable maximumcontaminant exposures at a site are lessthan the reference dose or cause fewerthan 1 in 10,000 excess canceroccurrences. This is consistent with theremedial action threshold forcarcinogens defined in the Preamble tothe National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan(55 Federal Register 8716, March 8,1990). This means that EPA has madethe reference dose equivalent to1 in 10,000 cancer occurrences forscreening purposes. Because PRGs arereference doses and concentrations ofcontaminants that result in 1 in1,000,000 cancer occurrences, the PRGsfor cancer agents are 100 times smallerthan the equivalence set by OSWERDirective 9355.0-30. Multiplying thecancer PRGs by 100 restores the

equivalence for purposes of relative riskevaluation.

Q.10 What is the relationship betweenMaximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)and concentration standards inAppendix B-1?

A. MCLs, established by EPA under theSafe Drinking Water Act, apply to watersupplies used for human consumption.Under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act, asamended (CERCLA), MCLs are oftenconsidered applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements forgroundwater response actions. SomeMCLs are risk-based, while others aretechnology-based. When compared toconcentration standards inAppendix B-1, results are mixed. Fornoncancer toxicants, concentrationstandards in Appendix B-1 are generallyequivalent to or lower than MCLs. Forcancer-causing agents, concentrationstandards in Appendix B-1 (equivalentto 1 in 10,000 excess canceroccurrences) are in some cases aboveMCLs and in others below MCLsdepending in part on whether the MCLis risk-based or technology-based.

Q.11 Why is the threshold for the CHF ratingof “significant” set at 100?

A. The relative risk site evaluationframework is a programmatic tool usedto categorize sites that haverequirements for future work into threebroad bands called “high,” “medium,”and “low.” In order to place the CHF inthe appropriate perspective, it isimportant to note that neither the intentnor the application of relative riskevaluation is to classify risk in anabsolute sense that defines whatremedial action is required. Decisionsregarding future work are made


separately on the basis of a remedialinvestigation, baseline risk assessment,and evaluation of the acceptability of thecalculated risk. As stated in response toQuestion 16, a low overall site rating isnot equivalent to a no further actiondecision. Thus, the descriptors used inthe relative risk evaluation process suchas “significant,” “moderate,” and“minimal,” as applied to the CHF ratios,and “high,” “medium,” or “low,” asapplied to the overall site rating, must beconsidered relative terms to be usedonly in the relative rating of the sitesunder consideration. If there isinsufficient data to categorize a site, it isidentified as “Not Evaluated.”

The threshold values for the CHFdescriptors were chosen as 2 and 100such that when the site CHF wascombined with the other site ratingfactors, an approximately equaldistribution of sites among the threeoverall categories of “high,” “medium,”and “low” would result. This wasdetermined by testing the frameworkwith various values of CHF thresholdsat thousands of DoD sites. Each of thethree site-rating factors, which are basedon the three elements of the conceptualsite model used in a baseline riskassessment, are intended to have abalanced and appropriate impact on thefinal overall site rating. The balancedweighting of the three factors isillustrated (see Figure 7 in the Primer)by the fact that a “moderate” CHF willresult in a “high” overall site rating if an“identified” receptor exists and the MPFis either “evident” or “potential.” Evenwith a “potential” receptor, a “high”overall rating will result if an “evident”pathway exists for a site with a“moderate” CHF. (Also seeQuestion 13.)

Q.12 Does the Relative Risk Site EvaluationFramework consider wetlands as anecological receptor?

A. Wetlands, in the broad sense of thedefinition, are present at a large numberof DoD sites. As a result, maximumresolution of sites on the basis ofrelative risk to human health andecological receptors is obtained byconsidering wetlands as ecologicalreceptors when they are part of sensitiveenvironments such as critical habitats,marine sanctuaries, spawning areas, andother such environments listed inTable 2 of the Primer.

Q.13 What is the rationale for the assignmentof ratings to the 27 combinations of thethree factors used in the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Framework?

A. The bottom line answer is that forrelative risk site evaluation to be auseful programmatic tool, it had toresult in placing a significantdistribution of the evaluated sites intoeach of the three broad categories of“high,” medium,” and “low.” Thethresholds for each category wereestablished by evaluating data from allthe services to ensure that there wouldbe a distribution of sites into eachcategory. The choices of categories forthe 27 possible combinations of thethree different site characterizationfactors (depicted in Figures 3 and 7 ofthe Primer) are based on a balancedconsideration of the three factors as theydescribe the degree of completion ofexposure of receptors to contaminants.The logic of the assigned categories isperhaps best understood by consideringthe combinations depicted in Figure 7 ofthe Primer in light of the exposurescenarios represented by each of the27 possibilities.


With a significant CHF, whichrepresents a concentration ofcontaminant that is two orders ofmagnitude above the concentrationstandard (see Appendix B of thePrimer), any combination of evident orpotential migration pathway with anidentified or potential receptor isassigned to be in the high category. Anypotential for exposure to contaminantsat this high relative concentration willreceive highest priority. Only if eitherthe migration pathway is confined (nomigration to a point of exposure) or thereceptors are limited (little or noreceptor access to site) is the site placedin a medium category. If both migrationis unlikely and receptor access isunlikely, the site is assigned a lowrating. In this case, the contaminant,though present at high concentrations,will not be exposed to receptors and canawait cleanup while other sites with amore certain scenario for exposure areaddressed.

Sites with a moderate CHF, whereconcentrations of contaminants exceedconcentration standards by factors of2 to 100, also receive high ratings ifmigration is evident and receptors areidentified, if migration is evident andreceptors are potential, or if migration ispotential and receptors are identified.These situations all represent likelyexposure scenarios to concentrations ofcontaminant that exceed theconcentration standards by more than afactor of 2. If both the migration and thereceptors are potential, exposure is lesslikely and a medium rating is assigned.If migration is evident, even if thereceptor is judged to be limited, amedium rating is also assigned to allowfor the existence of an unanticipatedreceptor. In the case of confinedmigration (no migration to a point ofexposure), all receptor possibilities areassigned a low rating because exposure

is unlikely. The combination of potentialmigration and limited receptors is alsoassigned a low rating.

With a low CHF, where measuredconcentrations are less than twice theconcentration standard, only sites withboth evident migration and identifiedreceptors are assigned a high rating. Ahigh probability of exposure, even tothis relatively low concentration,received the highest priority. Evidentmigration with potential receptors orpotential migration with identifiedreceptors both receive a medium ratingbecause of the likelihood of exposure,albeit to a relatively lower concentrationof contaminant. All other possibilitieswith this relatively lower concentrationof contaminant receive a low rating.

Q.14 What happened to the Defense PriorityModel (DPM)?

A. In 9 November 1993, testifying beforethe Senate Committee on Energy andNatural Resources, Sherri Goodman,Deputy Under Secretary of Defense(Environmental Security) stated thefollowing: “...concerns have been raisedabout the use of DPM for determiningprogram priorities and DoD has decidednot to use the model on a DoD-widebasis.”

Q.15 How does the Relative Risk SiteEvaluation Framework relate to theHazard Ranking System (HRS)?

A. Both the HRS and evaluationframework are screening tools that canbe used to evaluate relative risks atwaste sites. The HRS is an EPAregulation (40 Code of FederalRegulations 300, Appendix A) used toplace sites or aggregates of sites on theNational Priorities List (NPL) if scoresare above 28.5. Although the HRS hasthe capability to differentiate among the


relative risk of sites, it is morefrequently applied to identify candidateinstallations for the NPL. The relativerisk framework is a tool used to groupsites in high, medium, and low relativerisk categories to help sequence work atinstallations or former defense sitesgiven the available resources. The HRSevaluates groundwater, surface water,soil, and air pathways and considershuman and ecological receptors (calledtargets). Each pathway in the HRS isevaluated using three factor categories(likelihood of release, wastecharacteristics, and targets) each ofwhich is subdivided into a number offactors tied to site-related information.The relative risk framework evaluatesgroundwater, surface water, and surfacesoils and considers human andecological receptors. Both the HRS andrelative risk use toxicity data from EPAdatabases for assessing contaminants;however, only the HRS takes wastequantity into account. The HRS assignsa single score to a site between 0 and100 from a one-time ranking thatbecomes permanent. The relative riskframework assigns a site a high,medium, or low rating at a point in time,but allows for re-evaluation of a sitewhen important new informationbecomes available. HRS ranking isdetailed, time-intensive, and requiressignificant support documentation. Inaddition, HRS evaluations are typicallynot specific to sites when applied tomilitary installations. HRS evaluationsare based on an aggregation of sitesacross an installation. Relative riskevaluation is simpler and moretransparent than HRS evaluation, isapplied site by site, but is subject tomore judgment.

Q.16 Will “low” relative risk sites beaddressed or will they be deferredindefinitely?

A. A low relative risk site is not equivalentto a no further action site. Appropriateresponse actions will be programmedfor all low relative risk sites as dictatedby available resources and other riskmanagement considerations.

Q.17 Does the Relative Risk Site EvaluationFramework apply to ordnance andexplosive wastes?

A. The relative risk evaluation frameworkapplies specifically to hazardous,petroleum, and radioactive waste sites inthe environmental restoration program.A separate methodology has beendeveloped for grouping ordnance andexplosive waste sites into high, medium,and low categories. This methodology isbased on safety concerns, and results aretracked separately from other sites.

Q.18 When are relative risk site evaluationsnot performed?

A. Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired at sites classified as (1) having“all remedies in place,” (2) “responsecomplete,” (3) lacking sufficientinformation, or (4) abandoned ordnance.These four situations are discussed insection 1.4 of the Primer.

Relative Risk Site Evaluation within the Department of Defense Cleanup Program

H050-B-221 2

● Introduction– Origins of relative risk– Work group composition and products

● Description of framework– What it is and is not– Media and factors– Documentation– Example/benefits

● Use of relative risk in program management

● Implementation

● Workgroup recommendations

● Detailed descriptions of each relative risk factor

Outline

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

DETAILSDETAILS

H050-B-221 3

Origin of Relative Risk within DoD

● Relative Risk guidelines specified in 14 April 1994 DERP Management Guidance– Proposed risk management concept for

building FY96 program– For interim and remedial action projects

Components will indicate “the number of sites, the current relative risk and expected risk reduction the project will achieve” (p. 16)

– To measure performance, Components will report on the number of sites where relative risk has been reduced (p. 6)

H050-B-221 4

Work Group Objectives

● Prepare a method or procedure to group sites into high, medium, and low relative risk categories based upon the risk management concept in Management Guidance (May 1994)– Review methods used by Components– Develop a common methodology using consistent

definitions● Establish a peer review process to monitor and

improve relative risk evaluation (August 1994)– Develop a consistent data format– Review and comment on relative risk data collected

by Components

H050-B-221 5

Work Group Participants


● DoD● Army

✓ Army Environmental Center✓ Army Center for Health Promotion and

Preventive Medicine● Navy

✓ Chief of Naval Operations ✓ HQ Navy Facilities Engineering Command

● Air Force✓ HQ Air Force Environmental Restoration Program Directorate✓ Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force✓ Air Force Institute of Technology

● FUDS✓ HQ and HTRW Center of Expertise U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

● Defense Logistics Agency

● HQ Environmental Protection Agency

H050-B-221 6

Work Group Products

● Produced the DoD Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer

● Developed DoD Question and Answer Fact Sheetand response to EPA comments

● Produced a draft Interservice Relative Risk Site Evaluation Peer Review Report


H050-B-221 7

What is Relative Risk Evaluation?

Definition The grouping of sites in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program into High, Medium, and Low categories based on an evaluation of site information using three factors: the contaminant hazard, the migration pathway, and the receptors

It is A common methodology for evaluating the relative risk posed by a site

A screening tool

An evolutionary instrument

A framework for dialogue with stakeholders

It isn’t A way to avoid our legal agreements

A means of reducing our financial obligations

An abdication of our cleanup responsibilities

An absolute assessment of risk

A substitute for a health assessment

A remedy selection tool

H050-B-221 8

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Summary

XXXXX

X

Sites

Contaminant Hazard Factor


Receptor Factor

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Regulator and Public Stakeholder Involvement in Technical Evaluation

Sites* at each

Installation**

Data Assembly***

Evaluation Factors

Relative Risk

Categories

Source

Pathways

Receptors

*Sites for current DoD installations equate with "Projects" in the Formerly Utilized Defense Sites (FUDS) Program **Installations equate with "properties" in the FUDS Program ***Data assembled by environmental medium

Regulator and Public Stakeholder Involvementin Technical Evaluations

H050-B-221 9

Site Evaluation Framework is a Method for Placing Sites into Relative Risk Categories

It evaluates source, pathway, and receptor relationships in:

Based on:

Groundwater (human endpoint)Surface water (human and ecological endpoints)Sediment (human and ecological endpoints)Surface soils (human endpoint)

Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)How high are contaminant concentrations relative to standards?

Migration Pathway Factor (MPF)

Is the contamination moving or likely to move?

Receptor Factor (RF)Are there humans or sensitive environments affected or potentially affected by the contamination?

H050-B-221 10

Structure of Relative Risk Evaluation Framework

CHF = Contaminant Hazard Factor MPF = Migration Pathway Factor RF = Receptor Factor *Includes human and ecological endpoints

Groundwater

Surface Water and Sediment*

Soil

Site Information

CHF MPF RF Category

CHF MPF RF Category

CHF MPF RF Category

MEDIA EVALUATION FACTORS

(High, Medium, Low)

(High, Medium, Low)

(High, Medium, Low)

MEDIA-SPECIFIC RELATIVE RISK RATING

Overall Site Category--

High, Medium, or Low

SELECT HIGHEST MEDIA RATING

H050-B-221 11

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Matrix

CHF = Contaminant Hazard Factor MPF = Migration Pathway Factor RF = Receptor Factor H = High M = Medium L = Low

Evident

Potential

Confined

Identified Potential Limited

CHF = SIGNIFICANT

H H

H

M

M

MM L

H

RF

Evident

Potential

Confined


CHF = MODERATE

H H

H

M

M L

L L L

RF

Evident

Potential

Confined


CHF = MINIMAL

H M

M

L

L L L

LL

RF

MPF

MPF

MPF

H050-B-221 12

How is Relative Risk Evaluated?

Documentation The Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer is the primary source for direction

The Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet in the Primer is used to record pertinent information on each site that is evaluated

Instructions in the Primer show how to fill out the Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet

A stand-alone/executable computer program has been developed for conducting relative risk evaluations consistent with the Primer

Regulatory agency and public stakeholder input is obtained on site evaluations, where possible

H050-B-221 13

Relative Risk Evaluation Example

H050-B-221 14

Benefits

Benefits The framework provides a common approach among DoD components for categorizing sites by relative risk

The most urgent sites are identified so that resources can be focused on higher relative risk projects first

The rating serves as a basis for dialogue with stakeholders on sequencing work at installations

Periodic ratings serve as an indicator of progress in reducing relative risk

H050-B-221 15

Use of Relative Risk Information

● A factor in sequencing environmental restoration work (known requirements)– Framework for discussions with stakeholders– One factor in priority setting

● A program-level management tool– Used to identify the distribution of sites in each

of three relative risk categories for military departments within DoD

– Used as a measure of merit (MOM) at the HQ level to measure and report progress toward achievement of cleanup goals

H050-B-221 16

DERP Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution

Goals

• Relative Risk Site Evaluation• Bottom-Up Cost-to Complete• Legal Agreements

Program Management Guidance

• Legal Agreements• Initiatives• Eligibility• Performance Measures

Military Departments’ Program Review

Budget Submissions

• Budget Estimate Submissions

Evaluate and Adjust

• Performance Measures (Measures of Merit)

• Data and Management Information

• In-Progress Reviews

OS

D P

rog

ram

Ove

rsig

ht

Planning Guidance

President’s Budget

Congressional Appropriations

Environmental Restoration Accounts

• OSD Account– DLA– DNA– FUDS– ODUSD(ES)

• Army• Navy• Air Force

Military Departments Program Objectives

Memorandum

• Legal Agreements• Relative Risk Site Evaluation• Bottom-Up Cost-to-Complete

PROGRAM

BUDGET

EXECUTE

PLAN

H050-B-221 17

Requirements from Defense Planning Guidance

✓Complete relative risk evaluations at every Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) site

✓ Implement actions to reduce relative risk at sites in DERA and BRAC programs, or have remedial systems in place where necessary for these sites, within specified time frames and within the context of legal agreements

H050-B-221 18

Measures of Merit

● Relative risk reduction– High– Medium– Low– Not evaluated– Not required

● Progress at sites– Analysis– Cleanup– Response complete/NFA

● Milestones accomplished– Work underway– Actions taken– Remedy in place– Response complete/NFA

H050-B-221 19

Relative Risk Implementationat DoD Level

● Communication on a variety of levels

– Presentations to EPA staff and management

– Presentations to states at DSMOA conferences

– Placement of Primer on world wide web at http://www.dtic.dla.mil/envirodod/envdocs.html

● Training

– Service-specific training

– DoD training

● Performance

– Initial evaluations September 1994 - July 1995

– Accelerated data collection to meet the constraints for building the FY 96 program

H050-B-221 20

Relative Risk Implementationat DoD Level (Concluded)

● Data management

– Data managed by services

– Automated relative risk site evaluation worksheet

– DoD has assembled an integrated database for peer review purposes and incorporated relative risk information into its program management database

H050-B-221 21

Overview of the Draft Peer Review Report

● Requirement—Established by Relative Risk Work Group on 1 February 1995

● Scope—Active and former defense properties

● Primary Objective—To document work group efforts to develop the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework (i.e., Primer) and provide an internal DoD review of each Component’s relative risk data and implementation procedures

H050-B-221 22

Selected Findings and Recommendations

● Offer and provide relative risk training to environmental project managers and other stakeholders in the program using similar training materials

● Increase community input in relative risk evaluations through Restoration Advisory Boards and other means

● Establish a common relative risk data reporting structure to ensure consistency in service data submissions to DoD

● Improve the quality of data reported for the contaminant hazard factor by requiring quality assurance/quality control checks of relative risk data when it is computerized

● Add military-unique compounds to the list of contaminants that can be evaluated and identify concentration standards for these compounds

H050-B-221 23

Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)

● Comparison of maximum project contaminant concentrations in each medium to Relative Risk concentration comparison values

CHF =

● Three tiers– Significant = CHF > 100– Moderate = CHF of 2 - 100– Minimal = CHF < 2

[maximum concentration of A]

Comparison Value for A

H050-B-221 24

Standards for CHF Calculation

● Human health– Carcinogens = concentration that presents a 1 in 10,000 risk of

increased cancer incidence– Non-carcinogens = the reference dose (equivalent to Hazard

Quotient of 1)● Ecological

– Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) or EPA Lowest Observed Effects Levels in the absence of AWQC

– Sediment screening criteria from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy

H050-B-221 25

Appendix B-1: Comparison Values (For Human Endpoints)

● Apply to water and soil media● Used in conjunction with potential or actual human

exposures● Derived from EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation

Goals (PRGs) with exception of military materials and radionuclides

● Military Materials standards are taken from Army and Oak Ridge National Lab Studies

● Radionuclide standards (“benchmarks”) are taken from EPA’s Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) maintained as part of the Hazard Ranking System

H050-B-221 1

Appendix B-2: Comparison Values (Ecological Endpoint)

l Apply to surface water mediuml Used in conjunction with potential or actual

ecological exposuresl Based on Aquatic Water Quality Criteria or the Lowest

Observed Effects Levell Fresh water and marine (use appropriate column)

H050-B-221 2

Appendix B-3: Comparison Values (Ecological Endpoint)

l Apply to sediment mediuml Used in conjunction with potential or actual

ecological exposuresl Based on NOAA Sediment Screening Values

and values from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy

l Values used represent concentrations that produced response effects in less than 5% of the observations

H050-B-221 3

Mechanics of the CHF Calculation

[D]maxStd****

= X2

Contaminants Calculation***** Rating

Carcinogen A: [A]*maxCarcinogen B: [B]maxNon-carcinogen C: [C]max

Ecological D: [D]max

>100 = Significant CHF2-100 = Moderate CHF<2 = Minimal CHF

Std** - Comparison value based on 10 human cancer incidence-4

Std*** - Comparison value based on reference dose for humansStd**** - Comparison value for ecological receptors where available

*****Use comparison values in Appendix B

Note: Contaminants posing a threat to ecological receptors (i.e., ecological contaminants) must be evaluated separately from those posing a threat to human receptors

[A]*max [B]max [C]max+ +

Std** Std** Std***

- Maximum concentration in medium

= X1

[A]*-4

H050-B-221 4

Mechanics of the CHF Calculation—Example*

Contaminant** Maximum Concentration (ug/l) Standard (ug/l)

4.6

61.0

2.0

720.0

180.0

6.8

3.3

3.2

16.0

10,700.0

1,1-Dichloroethylene [carcinogen]

1,2-Dichloroethylene (z) [non-carcinogen]

Vinyl Chloride [carcinogen]

Toluene [non-carcinogen]

Manganese [non-carcinogen]

Calculation

6.8 3.3 3.2 16.0 10,700

4.6 61 2.0 720 180+ + + + = 62.59

>100 = Significant

2-100 = Moderate

<2 = Minimal

*From Appendix A of Primer**Groundwater Medium

H050-B-221 5

Mechanics of the CHF Calculation for Substances with both Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Effects

[D]

Std****

= X 2

Contaminants Calculation***** Rating

= X1

Carcinogen A: [A]*maxCarcinogen B: [B]maxNon-carcinogen C: [C]max

Ecological D: [D]max

Carcinogen/Non-carcinogen E: [E]max

>100 = Significant CHF2-100 = Moderate CHF<2 = Minimal CHF

Std** - Comparison value based on 10 human cancer incidenceStd*** - Comparison value based on reference dose for humansStd**** - Comparison value for ecological receptors where available

*****Use comparison values in Appendix B

Note: Contaminants posing a threat to ecological receptors (i.e., ecological contaminants) must be evaluated separately from those posing a threat to human receptors

[A]*max [B]max [C]max [E]max [E]max

Std** Std** Std*** Std** Std*** + + + +

[A]* - Maximum concentration in medium

max

-4

H050-B-221 6

Mechanics of the CHF Calculation—Example 2*

Contaminant2 Maximum Concentration (ug/l) Standard (ug/l)

180 ug/l

4 ug/l

18 ug/l

26 ppm

31 ppm

0.6 ppm

1,390 ug/l

1,400 ug/l

128 ug/l

880 ppm

385 ppm

10 ppm

Cr** [non-carcinogen]

Pb** [non-carcinogen]

Cd** [non-carcinogen]

Cr***

Pb***

Cd***

1,390 1,400 128

180 4 18++ = 365 = Significant

880 385 10

26 31 0.6++ = 62.9 = Moderate

*From Appendix A of Primer **Surface water medium, human exposure***Sediment, ecological exposure

H050-B-221 7

Mechanics of Surface Water/Sediment Evaluation

CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-1 (water); MPF; RF

CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-2 (fresh or marine); MPF; RF

CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-1 (soil); MPF; RF

CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-3;MPF; RF

Human

Ecological

ReceptorEndpoint

MediumSurface Water Sediment

l Summary of Relative Risk Site Evaluation possibilities

l Evaluate separately; take the highest rating

H050-B-221 8

l Each media pathway evaluated (groundwater, surface water/sediment, soil)

l Three tiers

– Evident: Contamination is present at, is moving toward, or has moved to a point of exposure

– Potential: Contamination has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information not sufficient to make determination of Evident or Confined

– Confined: Potential for contaminant migration from source is limited due to geological structures or physical controls

l Opportunity for technical input from regulators and community

Migration Pathway Factor (MPF)

H050-B-221 9

Receptor Factor

l Receptors (human or sensitive ecological species/environments) evaluated for each media

l Three tiers

– Identified: Receptors are threatened or have access to potentially contaminated media

– Potential: Receptors are not threatened but have potential access to media of concern

– Limited: Receptors are not threatened or have little or no access to potentially contaminated media

l Opportunity for technical input from regulators and community

H050-B-221 10

Site Evaluation Factor Information for Groundwater

Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] > 100

Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] = 2 - 100

Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] < 2

Significant

Minimal

Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)*

Moderate

Analytical data or observable evidence indicates that contamination in the groundwater is moving or has moved away from the source areaEvident

Potential

ConfinedInformation indicates that the potential for contaminant migration from the source via the groundwater is limited (due to geological structures or physical controls)

Migration Pathway Factor (MPF)**

There is a threatened water supply well downgradient of the source and the groundwater is a current source of drinking water or source of water for other beneficial uses such as irrigation/agriculture (equivalent to Class I or IIA aquifer)

Identified

Potential

Limited

There is no threatened water supply well downgradient of the source and the groundwater is currently or potentially usable for drinking water, irrigation, or agriculture (equivalent to Class I, IIA, or IIB aquifer)

There is no potentially threatened water supply well downgradient of the source and the groundwater is not considered a potential source of drinking water and is of limited beneficial use (equivalent to Class IIIA or IIIB aquifer, or where perched aquifer exists only)

Receptor Factor (RF)**

FACTOR RATING DEFINITION

Contamination in the groundwater has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information is not sufficient to make a determination of Evident or Confined

*Evaluate using comparison values in Appendix B-1 **Evaluate using definitions and detailed instructions in Section 3.4

H050-B-221 11

Site Evaluation Factor Information for Surface Water/Sediment




Significant

Minimal


Moderate

Analytical data or observable evidence indicates that contamination in the media is present at, moving toward, or has moved to a point of exposure

Evident

Potential

ConfinedInformation indicates a low potential for contaminant migration from the source to a potential point of exposure (could be due to presence of geological structures or physical controls)


(MPF)**

Receptors identified that have access to surface water or sediment to which contamination has moved or can move

Identified

Potential

Limited

Potential for receptors to have access to surface water or sediment to which contamination has moved or can move

Little or no potential for receptors to have access to surface water or sediment to which contamination has moved or can move



* Evaluate using comparison values in Appendix B-1 for surface water and sediments for human receptors. Use comparison values in Appendix B-2 for surface water and ecological receptors, and comparison values in Appendix B-3 for sediments and ecological receptors.

**Evaluate using definitions and detailed instructions in Section 3.5

Contamination in surface water or sediment has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information is not sufficient to make a determination of Evident or Confined

H050-B-221 12

Site Evaluation Factor Information for Soils




Significant

Minimal


Moderate

Analytical data or observable evidence that contamination is present at, is moving toward, or has moved to a point of exposureEvident

Potential

Confined

Contamination has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information is not sufficient to make a determination of Evident or Confined

Low possibility for contamination to be present at or migrate to a point of exposure

Receptors identified that have access to contaminated soilIdentified

Potential

Limited

Potential for receptors to have access to contaminated soil

Little or no potential for receptors to have access to contaminated soil


*Evaluate using comparison values in Appendix B-1 **Evaluate using definitions and detailed instructions in Section 3-6


(MPF)**


H050-B-221 14

Considerations in a Priority Setting

Contaminant FactorMigration PathwayReceptors

Possible Elements/Factors Considered

in Priority Setting

Risk Factors

Stakeholder Concerns

Economic Considerations

Public InvolvementRegulatorsPresence/VisibilityPoliticalEnvironmental JusticeCultural/SocialOwnershipMission Impacts

ResponsibilityRisk/Benefit RatioProperty ValuesEconomic DevelopmentGeographic Equity/BalancePotential for Cost RecoveryResource CompetitionReuse

Program Execution

Considerations

Technology FeasibilityConsistency with Program GoalsContinuityImpact of Delayed Action

Relative Risk

Risk Management

Considerations

H050-B-221 15

Relative Risk Site Evaluation—Issue Clarification

SoilSample

GWSample

X

SoilSample

GWSample

X

1. No reliable analytical data for a site

2. Site in Remedies in Place (RIP) or in Response Complete (RC) status

3. Analytical data within established background levels

4. Analytical results are below method detection limit

Site categorized as Not Evaluated (NE)

Do not perform relative risk site evaluation. They are Not Required (NR).

Evaluated as Low in Primer

Evaluated as Low in Primer

H050-B-221 16

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Scenarios High Relative Risk—Groundwater

H050-B-221 17

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Scenarios Medium Relative Risk—Groundwater

H050-B-221 18

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Scenarios Low Relative Risk—Groundwater

H050-B-221 20

Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosMedium Relative Risk (Human)—Surface Water or Sediment

Drainage ditch

Possible water supply

intake

River

Localized Contamination

Contaminant Source

Moderate Contaminant

Levels

Potential Migration

Potential Receptors

H050-B-221 21

Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosLow Relative Risk (Human)—Surface Water or Sediment

Moderate Contaminant

Levels

Confined Migration

Limited Receptors

Contaminant Source

Drainage Ditch

Engineered Berm

Contamination

H050-B-221 25

Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosHigh Relative Risk—Soil

H050-B-221 26

Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosMedium Relative Risk—Soil

H050-B-221 27

Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosLow Relative Risk—Soil

1 introduction - denix€¦ · natural resources (goodman, 1993). on 14 april 1994, dusd(es) issued...

Documents